We need deterrent, not appeasement

I HAVE read the article by correspondent Richard Ault, “UK is the world’s second biggest arms dealer”, and the sub-title “But campaigners say weapons experts are a source of great shame” (October 15), and the letter from correspondent Saros Kavina, “The billions spent on killing is world shame” (October 27).

I partly agree with their points of view and respect them, because I would certainly like to see a mutual respect for all people, then we would not have to turn the other cheek and we would not need an armed deterrent and we would not need to supply smaller nations with arms to deter would-be aggressors.

However, I would just like to ask the letter writers if they lock their doors at night and lock their cars when left unattended? I personally do as I regard this action as a deterrent to persons unknown who are not welcome to my possessions or may cause me harm. There is, of course, a cost for this protection, for good locks and alarms that we hope to mitigate via this deterrent.

That said, I do understand some people will take advantage of innocents who do not provide deterrents, for example, locked doors.

So on a national scale we have to provide a military force given the correct armaments (nuclear option aside) thus deterring an unfriendly nation invading and removing our ability to have a democracy where we can have our say free of retaliation or retribution, where the weak and disabled are valued and not disposed of or re educated.

I shouldn’t think I have to mention the Second World War being an example and please don’t say that was all in the past because we only have to look at the events occurring to Muslims in China today or the nameless country that sent assassins to deliver its version of democracy to our streets.

So to those who may not see why these weapons are bought in our name, view the bigger picture and understand why democracy must be protected at all cost so we have the ability to deter those countries who would take our freedoms away, because turning the other cheek, or should we call it appeasement, as we did in the case of Nazi Germany, simply does not work as much as we would wish it to.

H Whitemore, by email