Second strike

Andrew HN Gray (Letters 13 May) accuses me of misrepresentation, in describing Trident as a first strike weapon. He must have missed the statement made on her behalf by then Defence Minister Michael Fallon in April 2017 when he stated that Theresa May would be prepared to fire our nuclear weapons as a “first strike” even if Britain was not under nuclear attack.

Mr Gray is also guilty of the most gross misrepresenta - tion of reality in his defence of nuclear weapons. Note, he doesn’t attempt to justify the purpose of Trident, which is aimed at the total destruction of civilian population and habitat.

He quotes the Russian annexation of parts of the Ukraine, stating that this happened because Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons. He studiously avoids discussing the potentially catastrophic outcome and consequences of a situation whereby Ukraine, threatened by Russian invasion, was left with only the option of using its first strike weapons to deter it, as the British government has confirmed it is prepared to do.

No, Mr Gray, it’s the dino - saurs who still support the vast expense of Trident, which the Russians claim they can neutralise anyway, who need to get back to their Jurassic Park, and let there st of us move on with a more modern approach to defence and detente.

GILL TURNER Derby Street , Edinburgh