Does Britain need a nuclear deterrent?

OUR dinosaur trade unions, led by Unite and GMB, are likely to back Trident renewal, with the usual piffle about preserving jobs. They seem unaware that job losses due to Coalition cutbacks were more than offset by the private sector. But they’re at one with conventional opinion in refusing to acknowledge that the nearest thing nowadays to a Potemkin Village is Britain’s so-called independent nuclear deterrent. Control was handed to Washington when the decision was made to use a missile delivery system designed, manufactured and overhauled in the U.S. It’s inconceivable that No 10 would fire Trident without prior approval from the White House. Persisting with Trident in order to retain a Security Council seat is to reject British pragmatism in favour of la gloire. At least the French went to the trouble of developing their own submarine-launched missile delivery system. They own it, hence control it.

yUGo KoVACH, winterborne Houghton, Dorset.

ISRAEL is almost surrounded by unfriendly nations, some of which have sworn to its destruction, but wouldn’t dare to attempt such an act because of their fear that it may have a nuclear arsenal. That fear is the greatest safeguard against aggression and accordingly Britain must seek to retain Trident. Goodbye Mr Corbyn.

mArK FEnton, London nw9.

THE appointment of a unilateralist as Shadow Defence Secretary no doubt adds to the distrust of Labour felt by the majority in the country. However, the fact that Kevan Jones, and presumably other Labour politicians, are able to link defence to jobs demonstrates a lack of moral integrity. The need for Trident isn’t the need to create jobs.

roBErt HornEr, Godalming, Surrey.

JEREMy CoRByn is right. Britain doesn’t need a nuclear deterrent. Any country that has nuclear power stations must never go to war. Remember Chernobyl and Japan? And they were only nuclear power station leaks. Imagine what war would do.

t. riCKEttS, Cardiff.