Bunker mentality

Andrew HN Gray (Letters, 15 May) wilfully misrepresents my earlier comments.

I did not ask whether Russia would have been put off from invading the Ukraine if it had nuclear weapons. I asked him to contemplate the consequences for the region if Ukraine had nuclear weap - ons and felt compelled to use them as a first strike. What does he think the population of Ukraine would have pre - fer red–partial annexation of a part of the country which wished to return to the Russian fold, or total annihilation?

Mr Gray then asks me to name one nuclear-armed nation which has been invaded by another country. I’ ll give him two–India and Pakistan. Which countries are more likely to be hit by a firststrike nuclear attack? Coun

tries with nuclear weapons or countries who do not have them? Would Russia attack a Scotland which did not have nuclear weapons? Doubtful.

In an earlier letter, Mr Gray called me naive. In his latest, he says that in a nuclear attack

the leaders will also be killed. That takes naivety to a new level and clearly his research on response to nuclear attack needs brushing up. The leaders will be in the bunkers. We will beat home whitewashing the windows. Mr Gray

describes nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Since the end of 1945 there have been 250 major wars which have killed 50 million people. So that’s working really well, then.

Reading Mr Gray’s letters, about Trident and Brexit, you get the strong impression of someone who pines for the time when the atlas was largely pink and the sun never set on the empire. I used to read the Bunt y and the Judy as a child, but put their nostalgia behind me when I grew up.

GILL TURNER Derby Street, Edinburgh