Nuclear threat

A RECENT flurry of letters on the nuclear weapons in the independence debate appears to have both the Yes and, in particular, the No camps peddling a misconception.

Both sides often argue that the UK nuclear deterrent would be, in some way, unilaterally dismantled in an independent Scotland. This is not the case. The independence campaign and other enlightened people for that matter do not argue for disarmament; they argue for the 
removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland.

The rest of the UK, should it be foolish enough, can maintain its “never to be used unless Uncle Sam says so” deterrent. That is its business. It’s not a consideration for Scotland and it certainly does not disturb the world order.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

When, and I do mean when, a viable nuclear weapon falls into the “wrong hands”, no deterrent will exist to prevent its use.

The best defence against nuclear attack is to be insignificant, small and not worth the bother. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the UK and its nuclear deterrent is like a very small boy with a big gun: immoral, dangerous and stupid.




DOUGLAS Turner was right to query the need for Trident. Generally, economies flourish by adopting neutrality – look at Switzerland. The UK is long past being the world’s policeman. A recent example was the government’s refusal to put troops into Syria to train 100,000 insurgents to fight Bashar al-Assad as proposed by the Ministry of Defence. Precisely who would we have been training among the many factions involved in their civil war, and to what purpose?

Instead of the estimated
££100 billion for updating Trident, we need new antibiotics. It is a far greater threat to our security if millions die from infections from lack of antidotes with all the unintended consequences of what will in effect be akin to a series of plagues afflicting us, devastating our economy and crippling our society.


Western Harbour Midway