IT remains mysterious to me how George Robertson is squaring the circle when he says that the Trident missiles are detargeted and yet we get appearances of Trident subs in the world's trouble-spots.

It is a well-known fact that at the two recent crises in Iraq additional Trident submarines left Faslane on unscheduled missions. If then several weeks later, at the end of the crisis, a submarine appears in Gibraltar after ''exercises in the Mediterranean,'' we are still asked to believe that this was totally unrelated and its missiles were not used in a threatening way.

One question arises from this. Is the Secretary of Defence trying to cover his back, because he feels the pressure of International Law upon him? Is he acknowledging that the ruling of the International Court of Justice has any bearing on his actions? It seems that he implicitly acknowledges that ''the use and the threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal under international law''.

In what other way do we need to understand the conflicting statements on the Royal Navy Website and in the Times where it was said that the submarine which visited Gibraltar was not armed with nuclear missiles and George Robertson's own statement that the submarines were merely detargeted?

Dirk Grutzmacher,

New College,

Mound Place, Edinburgh.

December 15.

THE revelation from a jingoistic George Robertson last week that UK Trident missiles were programmed and ready to strike Iraq at the height of the recent crisis is absurd were it not so frightening. At a time when most civilised nations strive for a nuclear-free world, the Blair administration decides that Britain is quite willing to become the first country to use nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki - this despite a Labour manifesto pledge to encourage worldwide nuclear disarmament.

Like Alastair McIntosh (Letters, December 11), I take great exception to this unbelievable lack of judgment and ignorance of world opinion - possibly blinded by an indecent haste to pander to the self-appointed guardians of the world, the United States.

Such a strike, albeit on military targets using ''sub-strategic'' warheads, would only gain sympathy for Iraq abroad and bolster the hideous Saddam Hussein regime at home.

In Ian Bruce's article last week there is just a hint of a peace-weary defence correspondent dusting down his flak jacket and setting his commando comics to one side. We are invited to believe that it is acceptable to use those particular warheads which are not ''city killers'' - that makes it OK, then, let's make life even more miserable for the already beleaguered marsh Arabs.

We are further led to believe that it was this willingness to ''go to the brink'' that broke the deadlock, and nothing at all to do with the diligent and tireless efforts of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, incidentally representing a globally appointed peacekeeping organisation.

Trident at an estimated cost of #1.5bn per annum is increasingly irrelevant to a Scotland emerging from national hibernation; the vast majority of Scots think so, as do the Scottish Labour membership.

Contrary to the sense of importance radiated by Ministers such as Robertson, Cook, and Wilson (when he is flying the Union Flag at trade fairs), Britain is no longer perceived by people outside the UK as being a major player in any sense.

In order to experience this reality can I suggest that the average UK Minister should engage in unescorted international travel and not surround themselves with people who tell them exactly what they want to hear - a fact-finding mission in the true sense?

Iain Mackenzie,

12 Springfield Road,

South Queensferry.

December 15.

IN a radio interview this morning, George Robertson described Saddam Hussein as ''a brutal dictator with no respect for human life''. It is regrettable that the undoubted accuracy of this insight of our Defence (sic) Secretary is not accompanied by the elementary logic which would surely indicate the futility of trying to ''give Saddam a lesson'' by killing thousands of his people.

As so often with this Government, the truth is what is most vigorously denied. Thus the Foreign Secretary Mr Cook denies that the latest crisis is merely a fuss over a few lost documents. Mr Cook continues to emphasise the danger of Iraq's ''capacity,'' ''potential,'' or ''capability'' to produce chemical or biological weapons.

These words are chosen with cynical care, as both Unscom and Mr Cook's Ministry have acknowledged that there is no concrete evidence that Iraq currently possesses a single chemical or biological weapon. Iraq has in fact destroyed tens of thousands of shells, rockets and bombs under Unscom supervision, yet its people continue to starve and die from the effects of the embargo.

As no country in the world could convincingly demonstrate that it has no ''capacity or potential'' to produce chemical or biological weapons, the US and Britain have fashioned for themselves an open-ended pretext for intervention in Iraq, with no prospect of an end to the suffering of its people.

Cynics have suggested that the recurrent ''crises'' in Iraq are fomented to hide President Clinton's blushes on being called to account for his sexual peccadillos. Whether or not this is a case, it is abundantly clear that Britain's policy with respect to Iraq will continue to be unmarked by humanity, courage, or independence.

Liam Rodger,

7 Marchmont Crescent,

Edinburgh.

December 16.