Faslane an unlikely target

Sir, - It is too simplistic to argue that Faslane would automatically be a target in the event of a nuclear war as was recently suggested (letters, September 30).

The aim of a first strike is to eliminate the potential for retaliation.

What a lot of people forget is that the point of our deterrent nuclear submarines is that at least one is out on patrol, hidden, at any one time.

So striking Faslane would achieve very little militarily, as our ability to respond is not diminished.

It is true that the submarine would no longer have a home base, but it will have survived to do its planned job.

Whether it does so or not is a political question, but ‘wasting’ a weapon destroying Faslane by a state with limited resources is not a good strategy.

In fact, a far better military target in such circumstances would be a major city, or industrial complex.

What we must do is encourage diplomatic negotiation and compromises to prevent the nightmare scenario from happening.

However, if one side thinks it has nothing to lose – or simply doesn’t care – then no amount of negotiation will succeed.

Such a state will not care if their intended victims have a deterrent or not. Nick Cole. Balmacron, Meigle.