A rational approach to Britain’s nuclear weapons

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/09/rational-approach-to-britain-nuclear-weapons

Version 0 of 1.

If it were the case that “the purpose of the deterrent is that you don’t have to use it because you successfully deter” (Report, 9 November), our chief of defence should examine the reason why other European countries, such as Germany, have not been attacked. General Nicholas Houghton wants to waste £100bn on updating a nuclear relic from the cold war which can never be used without ensuring our own destruction. And how can he maintain that Britain was “letting down” its allies by not engaging in air strikes against Isis in Syria when the last thing the people of Syria need is more bombs? The only way to end this suffering is to put our conventional forces at the disposal of the UN as a peacekeeping force instead of the disposal of the US, as in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Maria Eagle and the rest of the parliamentary Labour party should not only back their leader in his stand against this political interference from an army chief but also unite as an effective opposition to a Tory government leading us into a disastrous economic slump of 1930s proportions while simultaneously signing away our democracy under the guise of trade treaties.Margaret PhelpsPenarth, Vale of Glamorgan

• The UK’s chief of defence claims Britain’s defences have been endangered by Jeremy Corbyn saying that he would not be prepared to push the nuclear button. Does the chief believe that UK defences have been endangered over the years by senior military persons with such comments as the following:

“The nuclear weapon is obsolete. I want to get rid of them all” (General Charles Horner, former chief of staff of the US Space Command).

“Nuclear deterrence depended on someone believing that you would commit an act totally irrational if done” (General Larry Welch, former chief of staff of the US air force).

“[M]ore and more western military and civilian security experts have expressed doubts about the military utility of nuclear weapons” (Robert McNamara, former US defence secretary).

And perhaps more directly, the comment by Lord Mountbatten, former admiral of the fleet: “As a military man who has given half a century of active service, I say in all sincerity that the nuclear arms race has no purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions they have generated.”Professor Richard JollyInstitute of Development Studies

• The Andrew Marr Show interview with General Houghton continues the trend towards muddying the Trident debate by reference to Corbyn “not pushing the button”.

In his earlier comments, was Corbyn suggesting that if he became head of a government elected with a policy of nuclear deterrence, he would nevertheless refuse to carry out the executive command? It is pretty hard to imagine how in reality the conditions for such inconsistency could occur.

Or was he saying that if he became prime minister, it would only be in a government that had rejected nuclear policy? In which case, there would be no button to press. Either way, let’s forget about buttons for a bit.John CornerEmeritus professor, University of Liverpool

• In order that we can make a rational choice based on facts, should not those who criticise Jeremy Corbyn’s stance on Britain’s nuclear deterrent be asked to explain exactly under what circumstances they would sanction or recommend its use? Also, what they believe the consequences of their actions would be.Peter CullenChippenham, Wiltshire

• If the armed forces are thinking of staging a mutiny or coup if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister “because there is so much opposition to his policies”, should David Cameron (opposed by 62% of the electorate) be worried? Perhaps a 40% cut in defence spending over the next five years (Osborne puts heat on holdouts as first ministers agree cuts, 9 November) would remind the generals that the voters are in charge.Dr Donald SmithHaddington, East Lothian

• I don’t see how General Houghton’s stating of the obvious can be seen as political interference. Mr Corbyn’s stance on nuclear weapons undermines the whole credibility of deterrence. No need for a general to tell us that: an 11-year-old child could.Mark EdmondsonLancaster

• Surely the lesson to be learned here is that senior military commanders should be prohibited from appearing on such TV shows, on the grounds that such displays of political naivety may seriously reduce the credibility of our defence systems? Dennis ArcherTighnabruaich, Argyll

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com