WHILE I applaud the intrinsic human goodness and admirable fellowship of man contained within the words of William F Wallace, I feel his argument perhaps reveals what some might consider an unintentional moral myopia (Letters, March 1).
I feel that he challenges the need for our strategic nuclear weapons largely on the principle that if we were attacked “millions of us here in Britain are likely to be killed or seriously injured”. His argument then develops into suggesting that if we were to launch a nuclear strike on the source of the attack it would be no more than a retaliatory “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”.
I would have thought the reason for any counter-attack was obvious. Although the enemy missiles would be launched towards us at the press of a button, the later consequence of an unprovoked nuclear attack on the UK would be very far-reaching. The base motives of our potential enemies must always be analysed and understood. They are waiting patiently for the day when we naively think that we are all too civilised on this planet for war.
Without a devastating counter-attack, once radiation levels had fallen to an acceptable level, an unhampered enemy would quickly land on our shores in strength. The invasion would not only be to scavenge the UK remains but to occupy most, if not all, of our island. It may require a second targeted wave of their still intact missiles. What they would do with our survivors makes my imagination restless.
Our UK government has a moral duty to plan to protect the remainder of the population in the event of a sudden nuclear attack by never being off guard. If that means renewing Trident ballistic missiles, then that is the price for continued peace.
Bill Brown,
46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel