DO YOU THINK YOU CAN EXPLAIN FOR ME WHY IT WAS AROUND 1958 YOU SUDDENLY GOT A SUDDEN UPSURGE IN INTEREST IN PROTEST MOVEMENTS AGAINST THE BOMB IN BRITAIN, WHY DID IT HAPPEN AT THAT TIME AND NOT BEFORE?

I think, there are two answers and I'm not sure which is the preferable. But I think they are both critical. One is that ah, it was the emergence above the surface, so to speak, of something, which had been germinating for a pretty long below the surface. It was the culmination in public feeling of processes which had ah, increasingly seeped into the minds of people in the years preceding it. The second answer, I think is that there were a number of political judgments and political events and, of course, events in the field of nuclear and atom power which had convinced more people than I think the newspapers and the media recognized that ah, there was an unprecedented problem and that it was increasingly dangerous and a great many people were just indifferent to ah, what are the consequences of this new scientific possibility of a completely catastrophic kind of future.

DO YOU THINK THAT THE BRITISH H-BOMB TESTS HAD A PARTICULAR INFLUENCE?

I thought it was contributory, but, largely marginal. Reflecting on these matters and one, as an old man, I forget, but ah, I have no doubt in my mind that I was mixed up in this, you go into Hyde Park or tower Hill and talk in the open air every week, you're at least in touch with the superficial ah, elements in this problem, and I should have thought that the answer to that question is that it was the accumulation of particular events, of which, the one you mentioned was one of them which ah, created a new mood, and out of that new mood came a new fear. And out of that new fear, I think, again, a new movement.

AND WHAT EXACTLY WAS THAT MOOD? WHAT WAS DRIVING THAT MOVEMENT? WAS IT A MORAL INDIGNATION, OR WAS IT FEAR?

I'm sure there was fear in it. And if the fear of the Lord is in the beginning of wisdom, I think it is, ah, fear does play I think a necessary and justifiable part in a reaction to a problem or to a danger. It was an increasing realization that ah, things were going on in a way which ordinary people, incapable of appreciating...and it was, put it this, I sat down with a number of other people at the gates of in protest with what was going inside, and my clear recollection was of the vast gap between what was going on outside in the world, and what was going on inside in, in, and that gap became so ominous and enlarged that ah, more and more people began to realize that we were in a new situation, and a colossally dangerous one.

WHEN YOU SAID A GAP, DO YOU THINK THE SAME APPLIES TO WHAT WAS ELSEWHERE?

I think there's inevitably a gap when you concentrate on or, have to concentrate on, or feel you have to concentrate on mass violence or the possibility of it as ah, a method of social change. Ah, I have a private view and I think it's feared by a number of people now that it is a remedy for going mad. That you lock yourself within the framework of armed violence and the nuclear power that science puts into the violent people's hands, and you become increasingly remote from the real world. I feel that very distinctly, what I was seeing down outside. The real world was the world in which I, I was walking in the dark, or trying to see through a fog. But it, it was clear sunlight compared to what was going on inside Aldermaston.

BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE BOMB WAS NECESSARY FOR BRITAIN OR THE WEST WOULD SAY THAT IT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE NOT IN THE REAL WORLD.

Yes, ah, I think that is a disposition to think that passes any rate, or ah, you're not quite up to the minute. But ah, I would resist that soft impeachment or hard impeachment. I believe I'm much more realistic than those people who seem to think that we're going to be better preserved by the deterrence of total destruction than we are by the application of Christian virtues. And it doesn't help me when people say; we are getting along all right so far. You, or some high cliff. It may take you some time to get down to the bottom, but there's not much point when you're half way down saying, I'm doing all right so far. And the laws of gravity aren't working today. I don't find from the history book any comfort in the idea that because for a time there is cessation of actual violence, that violence is being dealt with or removed.

...THE COMMANDER OF THE BOMBER COMMAND, WHO SAYS TO US, IN MY OPINION THE H-BOMB IS THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE WORLD. THERE HAS BEEN NO WAR FOR 40 YEARS.

This is the kind of claustrophobia which in my judgment, with due respect to the intelligence and general attitude of these Lords, I think they're wrong. And I find no comfort whatsoever in the idea that we're getting nearer to peace either from the prospect that opened up from Chernobyl, or from indeed, the vagaries of those who are shut up within this framework of violence and its deterrent effects and the deterrent methods of dealing with it. I find that these people are living in a cloud cooko-land. I think the world's a much more dangerous place than it was. Infinitely more dangerous. And ah, I know it's easy enough to cry wolf, but I think there are wolves about and ah, I'm quite concerned that, I hope I am that, even in my old age that people are not going to look with calm confidence on the future which depends on the completely illogical as well as immoral prospect that you build-up the p-possibility and the actuality of armed violence and hope that thereby, you will preserved peace. It doesn't seem to me to add up. History doesn't confirm it. And the future would warn us against it.

GO BACK TO THOSE EARLY YEARS, THE 1950S. WAS IT YOUR IMPRESSION AT THE TIME, THAT BRITAIN'S DECISIONS TO BUILD THE BOMB WAS ACTUATED BY GENUINE FEAR FOR THE SAFETY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OR DO YOU THINK THERE WERE OTHER MOTIVES?

I dare say there were other motives. And one of the governing factors in any international or wide concept of power, if you are the boss, you give the orders. If you are the junior partner, you take the orders. And I think that a great many people had an increasing sense that we were no longer the boss, that we were, in fact, a junior partner with ah, England as an available aircraft carrier on behalf of the United States located off the coast of Europe. And in that regard, I think a great many people were resentful of the fact that ah, they were in fact being told what to do and being involved in decisions, which were made outside their own boundaries. This, I think, is a very dominant fact in the whole attitude, shall we say, of government, successive governments, left and right in this country.

BUT MR. MACMILLAN'S ARGUMENT WAS THAT UNLESS BRITAIN HAD ITS OWN BOMB, IT WOULD BE A COMPLETELY JUNIOR PARTNER AND WOULD HAVE NO INFLUENCE.

That is an assumption that the only thing that really matters is political prestige.

COULD YOU INCLUDE THE THOUGHT....

Ah, Mr. Macmillan's argument, and it was shared by a great many other sincere people was that if we had no bomb, then sitting at the castle cham-chambers of any international or widespread conferences we should have nothing to say. I take an entirely different view. I believe that had we renounced the bomb, we could have mobilized opinion and conviction throughout the world, which might have had a very much greater influence at the conference table. You see, I don't accept what seems to me to be the so-called logic of the arms race, that the only reason upon which you can insist upon your voice being heard is that you've got a gun in your pocket. And I believe that the hope of the world is the hope that ah, people will react much more comprehensively and finally, much more peaceably if somebody says, I haven't got a gun and therefore, you need no gun either.

IT SEEMS TO ME JUST LOOKING AT THE LITERATURE...-THE PEACE MOVEMENT IN GENERAL IN THOSE DAYS CONCENTRATED VERY MUCH ON THE BRITISH H-BOMB, THE STRATEGIC WEAPONS...WAS THERE ANY PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS AT THAT TIME THAT DURING THESE YEARS 5,000 AMERICAN NUCLEAR WARHEADS...WERE BEING PLOWED INTO EUROPE RIGHT THROUGH THESE YEARS. WERE PEOPLE AWARE OF THAT, DO YOU THINK?

I don't think they were aware of it, at any rate to ah, a comprehensive degree. I think there was an increasing apprehension that we were being conned. Now, that cynicism was a very clearly developed reaction I found in the open air. First of all, you say, I'd like to know. Then you say, there's something I ought to know. Then you say, I can't find out, and I don't believe those who are going to tell me anyhow. That I believe had a great deal to do with the reaction against the whole panacea of international affairs and our own, so-called security. And in that regard, I think you're absolutely right. That what happened was that increasingly people felt themselves remote from what was really going on and each new event, which suddenly appeared on the screen, so to speak or in the media, was an added confirmation to them that ah, we in a world in which the idea of people governing their affairs was as remote as the stars.

WHAT DO YOU ATTRIBUTE TO THE FACT THAT IN THE END THE CND MOVEMENT THEN AND NOW APPEARS TO HAVE FAILED IN REALLY INFLUENCING THE COURSE OF EVENTS?

Well professionally I think we underrate the power of CND and I'm bound to say that people who ride on the euphoria of decisions which are made in the heat of the moment and with the best of intentions necessarily are the people who can persist when the rough, the going is rough. In that regard, I think there was a lack of moral imperative, this I must do whatever the consequences. Secondly, I think that people were concentrating very largely on the prospect of the bomb, and failing to see that the bomb was part of the system in which the world was being governed or misgoverned. And I can remember my own experience, how definitely I had to make up my mind that within the fabric of capitalism as such the bomb was an essential characteristic. And that only by getting rid of the whole empire of power represented by the capitalist system, privatization, to use a very modern word to express it, only by getting rid of that system could you really implement a peace policy.

SO YOU DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST BLOC WAS EQUALLY AT FAULT IN THIS AREA?

I never felt they were equally at fault...

COULD YOU START THAT SENTENCE AGAIN...

I have never ah, found it necessary to think in terms of cowboys and Indians as I'm afraid a great many Americans do, say nothing of their President. I don't believe that you can say that one side is totally wrong and the other side therefore is totally right. My sympathy has ah, been, and I'm no Communist, my sympathy, oh not...Communist in the intellectual, philosophic sense, my interest has been in trying to compare the behavior patterns of both sides and I'm bound to say that I think on the whole Russia has behaved better than America. And in that regard, I ah, am not at all afraid that people will accuse me of being a Communist and therefore ah, rule out whatever I have to say. I think on the whole, some kind of Communism is the only option for which the world can entertain any hope of its survival. It must be a non-violent one and it corresponds much more to the Socialism that I derive from the Sermon on the Mount than it does from some intellectual inquiry into 19th Century philosophy.

SO DO YOU THINK THE CND MOVEMENT WAS A VALIDLY AND OPENLY...MOVEMENT OF THE LEFT?

I think it was a public movement. I think it was a family movement. And I have every evidence of my own family to support that contention. I think it was a gut reaction and there's a great deal in the gut reaction, which is to be totally admired, and I think reality is invariably richer than thought. I think there leaders of it who were concentrating their attention on the arguments. I think, at the same time, had their been a deeper moral conviction that this is the way I must go and I can go no other way, I think ah, it would not have failed as it temporarily did fail. I think it failed for lack of the dynamic of an absolute conviction.

BUT IT ALSO FAILED BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE AGREED WITH IT.

Yes, that's another way of putting it. And I think it also politically failed when ah, the Labour Party preferred ah, a more compromising attitude in the interests of what they hoped to be an election victory. That in the prosecution, at its height as it was then of the CND movement. Its all very well to look back and be very wise in hindsight, but there was a point at which I believe the, yes the CND could have gone over the top. Really could have achieved a political breakthrough. I can remember the euphoria of that particular time. For the best of reasons, sabotaged that prospect in the Labour Party and ah, there was a decline. The weariness of non-success, which is one of the permanent dangers of all human action [TAPE STOP].Well, sometimes political, may I start again?

SURE.

Ah, sometimes, otherwise trivial incidents which ah, click as I think back...I remember one occasion at Tower Hill, we were having a particularly exciting argument and ah, I said more or less off the cuff if the Church, and I was thinking particularly the Roman Church, would be absolutely dogmatic in matters of war as it is completely dogmatic in matters of sex, and say that you could not, in fact, be a Christian and go to war, I think I'd ask to join them. And ah, I recall that as something, which I said on the spur of the moment and therefore probably, was ah, heartfelt. It wasn't calculated. And I do remember the very real response of the crowd which had been... and arguing and heckling and so forth, and suddenly was confronted because of that unpreconceived sort of comment that this is really what matters. That ultimately, the Christian faith depends on non-violent love, and unless that is the prime and absolute requisite, that all the other attentions which we pay to all the other vicissitudes in life, either become invalid or...