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.