Sir, As one of those who gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee against the replacement of Trident, I find it regrettable that Gordon Brown has signalled his intention to replace Britain’s dependent deterrent without taking time either to reflect on the committee hearings or to debate the issue within the Labour Party (Comment, June 23).

The political arguments in favour of renewal, in particular not to leave an open goal for the Conservatives on the issue, should not obscure the irrelevance of the deterrent in the face of the threats. One cannot deter global warming, Islamic terrorism, small-arms trafficking or collapsed states with nuclear weapons. Nor can one dissuade others from acquiring nuclear weapons by articulating the virtues of keeping our own in perpetuity. The estimated £15-25 billion cost of Trident’s replacement could go a very long way towards meeting Britain’s pressing security needs at home and in strengthening our armed forces fighting for Britain’s interests abroad.

PROFESSOR SHAUN GREGORY
Department of Peace Studies
University of Bradford

Sir, Brown should certainly challenge the Left over the nuclear deterrent but not by even allowing it to be thought that the Government might decide the matter without taking a vote in Parliament. If there is one lesson the British public has learnt from the Iraq war, it is that governments can be mistaken. Insisting that a small country such as Britain must have a fully functional independent nuclear deterrent can only send one message to the rest of the world, namely that they must have one too.

DR RICHARD TURNER
Harrogate

Sir, Neil Kinnock may have “infuriated the Left by declaring ‘there is now no need for something-for-nothing unilateralism’ ” (report, June 22), but it was not until July 1991 that Labour really abandoned one-sided nuclear disarmament.

What the 1988 manoeuvre did was merely to insist on some Russian missiles being scrapped in return for the scrapping of Polaris. For the next three years, Conservative politicians like Kenneth Baker, Douglas Hurd, Chris Patten and myself (letters, June 8, 1988 and Oct 6, 1989) pointed out that this would mean abandoning “the entire British deterrent in return for a two or three per cent diminution in Soviet strategic nuclear firepower”.

What really mattered was a commitment to keep some nuclear weapons as long as other countries possess them — and when this was finally conceded by Shadow Foreign Secretary Gerald Kaufman, it was described by Tribune as a “breathtaking capitulation to the Conservatives”.

It remains to be seen whether our pressure on the Labour Government now to state that they agree with us, not only to “retain” Trident, but actually to replace it, will similarly bear fruit.

DR JULIAN LEWIS MP
Shadow Defence Minister

Sir, If British Energy claims nuclear power to be “economically viable, independently” (Business, June 21), perhaps it can return the estimated government subsidy of £600 million for 2004 and 2005 and save the taxpayers £60 billion for the safe disposal of existing nuclear waste?

DR DAVID MacDONALD
Leigh, Lancs

Explore Letters

• Feedback