KEITH Howell (Letters, October 28) claims that a majority of the public favour a multilateral position, which is true enough. The only problem is, multilateralism simply does not exist. No British nuclear weapon has ever even been put on the negotiation table, ever. America and Russia have considerably reduced their nuclear arsenals – they can now blow up the world only five times over, not 15. We carry on regardless.

We have always had a “new lamps for old policy”. We upgrade our weapons, decreasing the numbers, yes, but increasing lethality and usability. Thus, the obsolete free-fall W177 was replaced by the superior Polaris missile, Polaris upgraded by Chevaline, and Chevaline by Trident. And so it will go on forever – we imagine.

The world is indeed unpredictable, as he says, but there is only one world, and it is equally unpredictable for every state. The logic is clear and inescapable. If we may defend ourselves with nuclear weapons of mass destruction then every other state in the world may follow our example and do likewise. And we are all on a handcart to hell.

The prestigious Canberra Commission declared back in 1996: “The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used – accidentally or by decision – defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance that they will never be used."

Either humanity has a future without nuclear weapons, or it has no future at all.

The Pope, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu and 121 nations of the world have called for an international treaty banning nuclear weapons, as articulated in the Vienna Initiative. The British Government ignores this. We persist in strutting the world’s stage defying all morality, and the will of humanity, as if we alone were entitled to deploy nuclear weapons.

All the British nationalist parties are hooked on the nuclear fix. Independence, and independence alone, will free us and our English friends from enslavement to this nuclear idolatry.

Brian M Quail,

2 Hyndland Avenue,

Glasgow.

SADLY Keith Howell (Letters, October 28) appears to be one of those closet imperialists who feel that the UK must retain its nuclear deterrent and intervene in other parts of the world – but only ''when needed''. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya , Syria ... it seems we are ''needed'' more often than we think .

Paradoxically, he sees these interventions as supporting the case for a nuclear deterrent otherwise ' we would need to spend more on conventional forces''.

I would have thought that intervening ''when needed '' has highlighted the UK's armed forces’ dearth of suitable equipment many times over as resources are diverted to Trident.

The nuclear codpiece that is our deterrent has had no impact on any of the conflicts that the UK has been embroiled in over the last five decades, nor will it impact on any future actions when we are ''needed''.

Confusingly, Mr Howell concedes that we live in '' an often unpredictable and violent world '' yet cautions against concentrating on purely home defence. But what else is our nuclear deterrent for but last ditch home defence?

James Mills,

29 Armour Square,

Johnstone.

POLITICIANS who wish to abandon Trident should reflect on the millions of people who have turned out this summer to watch the final flights of Vulcan XH558 – the last 1960s example of our legendary “V” force of nuclear bombers.

It might remind them that providing defence is the first and most appreciated duty of government.

Malcolm Parkin,

Gamekeepers Road, Kinnesswood, Kinross.