Page 7 - CAMPAIGN Winter 2021

“Novel And Challenging”
But Not Enough to Award a Medal says the AMSC.
We are very sorry to report that the Advisory Military Sub-Committee has unanimously decided not to award the British nuclear test veterans a medal for their extraordinary service at the atmospheric testing and clean ups between 1952-1967.
This is the second time that the AMSC has stated,
“That the Sub-Committee were again conscious throughout the discussions of the novel and challenging surroundings that the Service personnel involved in the test programme have found themselves.”
It seems that the participants are effectively being penalised for the dangers of the then new style of testing weapons of mass destruction whilst wearing little or no protection from blast injury or radioactive fallout. There has never been an operation like the atmospheric testing programme before or since.
At this present time, the nuclear deterrent is being talked about constantly within Parliament, yet the deterrent would not exist without the service and sacrifice of the test participants.
The letter continues,
“The Sub-Committee also once again discussed the issue of health and agreed that health had never previously been accepted as a reason for a medal being awarded, and that there was no reason to justify any change to that position.”
To say that the BNTVA is not impressed with Dr Winstanley’s response on behalf of the Sub-Committee is a gross understatement. To date, the old and the new Sub-Committee have denied all requests for a medal from BNTVA 1131134 and 1173575; in fact, the current Sub-Committee has denied requests from all retrospective submissions, including for the Berlin Airlift Ground Crew.
An extract of minutes concerning the previous AMSC’s recommendations on 29 August 2013 follows,
“Claim from Servicemen who witnessed the Atmospheric Nuclear Tests in the Pacific in late 1950 and early 1960.
This claim is for those servicemen who believe they were exposed to the risk of radiation when serving in the Pacific in the 1950s, when they were involved in helping set up and observe nuclear testing, without being advised properly or consulted.
Comment
There seems little doubt that the servicemen involved in the nuclear tests were not given a proper account of the risks they were running and therefore have a genuine grievance.
However, the other aspect of the criteria of medallic recognition i.e., rigour, was not there. It is not clear that medallic recognition is the right way for the Government to recognise this risk and there may be other ways for them to do so. Nevertheless, there is a case for the review to take a closer look at this, since it is not clear how the issue will be tackled otherwise.
AMSC Recommendation:
Disagree – not for review.
The sub-committee felt that this was not the type of operational duty that would normally be recognised by the award of a medal. The sub-committee was mindful that there were ongoing claims for compensation by some of this group of veterans and it would be inappropriate for any medal review to potentially impact upon that.”
The fact that the 2013 AMSC Sub-Committee stated that there was a genuine grievance by the servicemen involved concerning risk in the nuclear testing is of great significance yet has been ignored by the current Sub-committee.
So, according to the above, risk has already been established.
5
CAMPAIGN WINTER 2021