A nuclear warhead fired as one of a cluster from the uncertain launch-pad of a submerged submarine is not a precise weapon which can be guaranteed not to involve “collateral damage” to civilians and civilian infrastructure. In what opprobrium our country would be rightly held if, through the use of our precious “independent” nuclear capability, we took out main population centres, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people supposedly linked to a series of terrorist attacks on the UK. Let us hope we have moved on from Dresden and Hiroshima.

W.S. AFFLECK
Stroud, Glos

Sir, I wonder how many of the MPs who will vote on the replacement of Trident have the vaguest notion of its range, potential inaccuracy and horrific destructive power. Trident has a relatively short range of about 4,500 miles, so it would be of no use against North Korea, for example, if the submarine was on patrol in the North Atlantic. Its projected CEP (circular error probability) is said to be 1,250ft. This sounds impressive, but CEP is defined on the basis of only 50 per cent of missiles falling within the given radius, and there is no guarantee that a rogue missile might not go astray by many hundreds of miles.

Each Vanguard submarine carries 16 Trident missiles, and each Trident missile carries eight independently targetable re-entry vehicles, each of whose 100 kiloton warheads provides eight times the destructive power of the 12.5 kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. If Trident were to be launched, whether in retaliation or pre-emptively, many millions would die, the planet would be irreversibly polluted and civilisation would come to an end.

What sort of prime minister would be prepared to authorise the launch of a weapon of such destructive power? And what sort of a nation shall we prove if we are not prepared to protest with all our strength against this inhuman, unnecessary and cowardly weapon?

CHARLES GIDEY WHEELER
Tetbury, Glos

Explore Letters

• Feedback