Presidential Correspondence, lot 66 D 204, “Churchill Correspondence with Eisenhower”
No. 430
Prime Minister Churchill
to President Eisenhower
confidential
My Dear Friend: Thank you for your letter.2 I am honoured by the kind personal things you say.
There is no difference between us upon the major issues which overhang the world, namely, resistance to Communism, the unity of the free nations, the concentration of the English-speaking world, United Europe and NATO. All these will and must increase if we are to come through the anxious years and perhaps decades which lie ahead of hopeful but puzzled mankind.
On the day that the Soviets discovered and developed the Atomic Bomb the consequences of war became far more terrible. But that brief tremendous phase now lies in the past.
An incomparably graver situation is presented by the public statements of Mr. Sterling Cole at Chicago on February 17.3 I have discussed these with my expert advisers. They tell me that the 175 ft. displacement of the ocean bed at Eniwetok Atoll may well have involved a pulverisation of the earth’s surface three or four times as deep. This in practice would of course make all protection, except for small Staff groups, impossible. You can imagine what my thoughts are about London. I am told that several million people would certainly be obliterated by four or five of the latest H Bombs. In a few more years these could be delivered by rocket without even hazarding the life of a pilot. New York and your other great cities have immeasurable perils too, though distance is a valuable advantage at least as long as pilots are used.
Another ugly idea has been put in my head, namely, the dropping of an H Bomb in the sea to windward of the Island or any other seaborne country, in suitable weather, by rocket or airplane, or perhaps released by submarine. The explosion would generate an enormous radio-active cloud, many square miles in extent, which would drift over the land attacked and extinguish human [Page 1016] life over very large areas. Our smallness and density of population emphasizes this danger to us.
Mr. Cole further stated that Soviet Russia, though perhaps a year behind the United States, possessed the know-how and was increasing its production and power of delivery (or words to that effect). Moreover after a certain quantity have been produced on either side the factor of “over-taking”, “superiority”, etc., loses much of its meaning. If one side has five hundred and the other two hundred both might be destroyed. A powerful incentive to achieve surprise would be given to the weaker—what about Pearl Harbour? His natural fears would prey upon his moral and spiritual inhibitions (if indeed he was so encumbered).
When I read Mr. Cole’s widely reported speech, I was surprised that its searing statements attracted so little comment. The reason is that human minds recoil from the realization of such facts. The people, including the well-informed, can only gape and console themselves with the reflection that death comes to all anyhow, sometime. This merciful numbness cannot be enjoyed by the few men upon whom the supreme responsibility falls. They have to drive their minds forward into these hideous and deadly spheres of thought. All the things that are happening now put together, added to all the material things that have ever happened, are scarcely more important to the human race. I consider that you and, if my strength lasts, I, cannot flinch from the mental exertions involved.
I wondered, pondering on your letter, whether this was the background which had forced you to express yourself with such intense earnestness. I understand of course that in speaking of the faith that must inspire us in the struggle against atheistic materialism, you are referring to the spiritual struggle, and that like me, you still believe that War is not inevitable. I am glad to think that in your spirit, as in mine, resolve to find a way out of this agony of peril transcends all else.
I entirely agree with Mr. Cole’s remark that in this matter “It is more sinful to conceal the power of the atom than to reveal it.” This would not of course mean one-sided imparting of secret knowledge. But perhaps we have now reached, or are reaching, the moment when both sides know enough to outline the doom-laden facts to each other.
Of course I recur to my earlier proposal of a personal meeting between Three. Men have to settle with men, no matter how vast, and in part beyond their comprehension, the business in hand may be. I can even imagine that a few simple words, spoken in the awe which may at once oppress and inspire the speakers might lift this nuclear monster from our world.
[Page 1017]It might be that the proposals which you made at Bermuda and which are accepted by the Soviets for parleys on this subject, could without raising the issue formally give a better chance of survival that any yet mentioned.4 The advantage of the process you have set in motion is that it might probe the chances of settlement to the heart without at the same time bringing nearer the explosion we seek to escape.
Yours ever,
- A notation on the source text indicates that a copy of this message was delivered to the Acting Secretary of State on Mar. 12; there is no further indication of the exact date of the message.↩
- Supra.↩
- For extracts from the speech at Chicago on Feb. 17 by Congressman W. Sterling Cole (R–N.Y.), Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, see the New York Times, Feb. 18, 1954, pp. 1 and 8.↩
- Presumably Churchill is referring to the discussion of the President’s speech entitled “Atomic Power for Peace” during the meetings at Bermuda, Dec. 4–8, 1953. For records of these discussions, see vol. v, Part 2, pp. 1710 ff.; for the text of the speech as delivered on Dec. 8 to the U.N. General Assembly, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953, pp. 813–822, or Department of State Bulletin, Dec. 21, 1953, pp. 847–851.↩