Some time ago an online correspondent expressed disbelief that there was even one person (meaning myself, I think) who was stupid enough to believe that the detonation of just one nuclear device would not end life on earth.
Frank Donald (Letters, 10 April) is more restrained but still hints of the same.
That nuclear weapons exist at all is of course a severe indictment of humanity; but they do, so we need to take a more pragmatic view.
By the time of the 1968 nonproliferation treaty there had in fact already been hundreds of nuclear explosions.
Fossil-fuel power stations are probably a greater threat to life on earth .
There are two ways to prevent war, namely surrender without a fight or make it abundantly clear to any potential aggressor that they simply cannot win.
The latter was the main reason for development of the UK deterrent.
It is highly likely that had nuclear weapons not been available to both sides then the so-called Cold War of last century would have become a very hot Third World War.
Unless the SNP really believes in the farcical definition that being an accomplice involves no complicity then it simply can not apply to join Nato while depriving that organisation of part of its defence system.
Dr A McCormick