Britain requires a fresh defence review to ensure that extra funds are well spent

SIR – The Prime Minister’s announcement last week of £75 billion in new defence funding (“War footing as Sunak ramps up defence spending”, report, April 24) was welcome, if overdue. The British electorate now has a clear choice on whether to put defence of the realm at the top of its priorities. However, Con Coughlin (Comment, April 25) was right to highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive defence review. A balance must be restored between machines and manpower, against a clear political statement of what the Government wants.

This review should also provide the UK armaments industry with adequate assurance of the continuity of orders. Due account must be taken of the rapid technological advances now being made in military equipment, which may eventually enable sensible economies to be made in both manpower and weapon stockpiles.

Finally, any review should include the applicability to the UK, and affordability, of an “Iron Dome” concept of air defence (Comment, April 21) similar to Israel’s.

Air Commodore Michael Allisstone Sidlesham, West Sussex

SIR – Since Britain invested in Polaris and its descendants, surely an Iron Dome has been unnecessary. A submarine-launched British missile – which would be indistinguishable from an American one – would trigger a counterattack on the greater US threat. Whether led by Joe Biden or Donald Trump, the US can prevent a British launch and the inevitable Russian response against it only by protecting the United Kingdom.

Perhaps our senior politicians misunderstand the true basis of the special relationship.

Dr Andy Ashworth Bo’ness, West Lothian

SIR – Janet Daley’s analysis (Comment, April 21) of what has brought us to the brink of nuclear disaster looks at the unholy alliance of China, Russia, Iran

and North Korea. Of course, once these uneasy bedfellows have safely dispatched the free world, they will inevitably turn on each other.

In the meantime, these totalitarian regimes have a common denominator, and it is not the fear of attack or invasion from an aggressive neighbour, however disingenuous their rhetoric may be. Rather, it is the fear of regime change caused by their own populations seeing how a free and democratic system can provide a better life. The success of such neighbouring countries – or, indeed, those on the other side of the world – is anathema to totalitarian regimes. Thus, for China, Hong Kong was intolerable and, now it has dealt with that problem, Taiwan will inevitably come next. For Russia, it is Ukraine, and for Iran it is Israel, where women and LGBT people are able to lead such different lives. And in what could be a laboratory experiment, history has shown us what the different paths taken by North and South Korea have achieved for their populations.

The response of the West cannot be further appeasement. We must defend our freedoms by collectively providing timely, firm and robust support to those countries that are unable to defend themselves. Let us hope that by this action, and the message it sends, we can avert future aggression and the catastrophe we must otherwise fear.

Simon Chalwin Sedgehill, Wiltshire

SIR – Reading, almost daily, the comments from previous defence ministers and service chiefs regarding the need of a coherent plan for our Armed Forces, I am reminded of the advice given to one of my sons at Sandhurst some years ago.

He was in a command appointment and tasked with defending a recently won location against an imminent counterattack. His colour sergeant whispered: “You need a plan, Sir, one that everyone understands. May I remind you, Sir, that hoping for the best is not a plan?” That advice is still good.

Major Malcolm Wallace (retd) Stoke Albany, Leicestershire