I took out my pocket calculator and did a few quick sums. I looked up at him. That would still leave five Polaris bombs which could get through the defences.
Humphrey was triumphant. Precisely -- a mere five.
Enough, I reminded him gently, to obliterate Moscow, Leningrad and Minsk.
Yes, he sneered, but thats about all.
I wasnt sure I was understanding him correctly. I would have thought that thats enough to make the Russians stop and think.
Humphreys enthusiasm for Trident knows no bounds. But dont you see, Prime Minister -- with Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
I dont want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe. I told him so. He nodded impatiently. He knew that. He thought I was missing the point. It has to be an effective deterrent, Prime Minster.
But its a bluff, I told him, I probably wouldnt use it.
They dont know that you probably wouldnt use it, he argued.
They probably do, I said.
He was forced to agree. Yes they probably know that you probably wouldnt. But they cant certainly know.
Hes right about that. But they dont have to certainly know. They probably certainly know that I probably wouldnt, I said.
Yes, he agreed, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldnt, they dont certainly know that although you probably wouldnt, there is no probability that you certainly would.
Bernard was taking careful minutes. Its lucky he does shorthand and was able to reconstruct this conversation for me in writing by the end of the day.
But Humphrey could see that he was making no headway with his deterrent argument. So he made one attempt to persuade me to keep Trident, this time by flattering me and playing on my vanity. I cant imagine why he thought that would have any effect!
Look, Prime Minister, it all boils down to one simple issue. You are Prime Minister, Prime Minister of Great Britain. Dont you believe that Britain should have the best?
Of course.
Very well. He took that as a cue to rhapsodise. If you walked into a nuclear-missile showroom you would buy Trident -- it's lovely, its elegant, its beautiful, it is -- quite simply -- the best. And Britain should have the best. In the world of the nuclear missile it is the Savile Row suit, the Rolls-Royce Corniche, the Chteau Lafite 1945. It is the nuclear missile Harrods would sell you! What more can I say?
Only, I replied calmly, that it costs 15 billion and we dont need it.
Humphrey shook his head sadly. In his view I had completely missed the point. You could say that about anything at Harrods, he replied reasonably.
January 30th
Tonight we had a reception at Number Ten. Six-thirty to eight. My first party since I became Prime Minister, though many of the guests were hangovers from the previous regime. [And a few had hangovers from the previous regime Ed.] As we were members of the same party, it didnt matter much.
I wasnt looking forward to it much, after a long and trying day. But, as so often happens, something truly unexpected emerged from a chance conversation. Among the guests was General Howard, who had showed me over the MOD a week or so ago. I buttonholed him. I told him that I had to sound him out on something, and that he was not going to like it.
Tell me the worst, Prime Minister, he said stiffly.
So I did. I said that even though it would doubtless come as a severe blow to the services and would be most unpopular, I intended to cancel Trident.
He muttered something that I only half heard. Now hold on, I said, dont jump on it too quickly, its no use arguing, I And I stopped. I realised what Id half heard. What did you say? I asked, in case I was fantasizing.
Good idea. Terse and to the point, as always. I wasnt sure I understood him correctly.
You mean, youre in favour? Of cancelling Trident?
Of course.
For the second time in just over a week, all my preconceptions about defence were stood on their head.
I stood there, gazing up at this imposing, sandy-haired, beetle-browed, six-foot four giant. Why are you in favour?
We dont need it, he replied briefly. Its a complete waste of money. Totally unnecessary.
I could hardly believe my ears. The most senior army officer in the country agrees with me that Trident is a complete waste of money. I told him that I hoped to keep Polaris, keep the American bases, and strengthen our conventional forces.
Youre right.
I wondered if he were a tame eccentric. Does the whole Defence Staff agree?
He shook his head. No. The Navy want to keep it. Its launched from their submarines. Take away Trident and theyve hardly got a role left.
So theyll resist it?
Yes, but the Navy resist everything. They nearly lost us World War I by resisting convoys.
And the RAF? I asked.
Well, he replied dismissively, you can ask them. If youre interested in the opinions of garage mechanics. But Im afraid theyd want Trident. Only they want it in the form of a missile launched from the air, like an Exocet.
Suddenly it was all making sense to me. Why had I ever thought the Services would have a joint view on the matter?
General Howard continued to explain the RAF mentality as he sees it. They want the Bomb to be carried around in an aeroplane, you see. All theyre really interested in is flying around dropping things on people. Not that theyre any good at it -- I mean, they couldnt even close the runway at Port Stanley. Theyd probably never even find Moscow. If they did, theyd probably miss.
The problem is clear. How do I get the policy past the MOD if only the army is in favour of it? I put this to the General and he had a ready-made solution. The Chief of Defence Staff job is shortly becoming vacant. Technically its the Navys turn. But its your decision. If you appoint a soldier
Delicately, he let his sentence remain unfinished. I already know that he is the most senior soldier. So if I appoint him, Ill have the Chief of Defence Staff on my side. I dont know whether thatll be enough, or how the Navy will respond if I overlook their man, but its obviously something I have to consider in due course.
[Sir Humphrey Appleby also had a few words with General Howard at the reception at 10 Downing Street that evening. And their conversation, unlike General Howards conversation with the Prime Minister, apparently changed the course of events. Sir Humphreys recollections of that conversation are to be found in his private papers Ed.]
The General seemed unusually relaxed after a short talk with the Prime Minister, which I had been observing. When in due course I spoke to him, he remarked that he was pleased to have come across a Prime Minister with a bit of sense.
I asked which country was so blessed with such a leader. I knew, of course, that he was referring to Hacker, and my guess was that Hacker had not put him fully in the picture.
I was right, of course. The PM had spoken to General Howard about cancelling Trident, but not about reintroducing conscription. When I mentioned all the details the General was horrified, as I knew he would be.
Hacker wants conscription because it helps unemployment and therefore wins votes. The army does not want conscription, and has never wanted it. They are very proud of their lite, professional army. It is tough, disciplined, possibly the best in the world. The Chiefs of Staff do not want a conscripted mob of punks, freaks, junkies and riff-raff, a quarter of a million hooligans on its hands with nothing to do except peel potatoes at Aldershot. The generals are afraid that this would turn it into an ordinary army. [Like the one that won World Wars I and II Ed.]
They are also worried about the new equal-opportunity legislation. In America it is well known that the NATO commanders dont know if the troops being posted to them are men or women. Not until they arrive. Sometimes not even then.