I DON’T believe Keir Starmer’s claim that deterrent and safety are two sides of the same coin. Not where the deterrent he is referring to is nuclear war prevention. It seems his only conviction for “pressing the button” is based on the notion of defence of the realm.

Defence can only take place where an attack has happened. Any nuclear attack from an enemy country would no doubt wipe out the possibility of retaliation. Three or mebby four strategically aimed nuclear missiles could wipe out the UK in total.

READ MORE: Keir Starmer 'willing' to press nuclear button if UK attacked

Fat chance of pressing the button, Starmer, with or without the cooperation of the US government. The nuclear warheads belong to the US, or has Starmer not been told? More to the point, since World War Two the President of the United States has had sole authority to launch US nuclear weapons, whether as a first strike or nuclear retaliation.

So far as I am aware, America, the US, North Korea, France, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan and India are the only nuclear powers. So why is it that the UK Government, regardless of which party, appears to be shouting the loudest. Some of the aforementioned countries are a surprise to me. But is that because they have different values on why their countries are important as far as the rest of the world is concerned?

Starmer doesn’t appear to have any priorities where government of the country is concerned. His most important policy for keeping Britain safe is his nuclear deterrent, this the “bedrock” of his hoped-for ministry. Any bedrock would not stand a chance from a nuclear attack, whether in retaliation or as a first strike.

Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

ONE of the most alarming newspaper headlines I have read on any news stand recently was carried by Saturday’s National: “Starmer: I’d be willing to press nuclear button”. In an attempt to sound sane, he states that if the UK is attacked then a willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons remains our surest policy for remaining safe.

I suggest that no country would be liable to attack us without itself already being a nuclear power. Our main danger lies in so-called “Great Britain” becoming involved in a warzone whereby success on the battlefield turns nuclear at the orders of a political dictator with mental problems. Supplying weapons to an aggressor and simultaneously aid to the victims is both inhumane and uncaring.

READ MORE: On nuclear weapons, independent Scotland will be as reasonable as UK has been

Given present extremes of fighting, beyond humanitarian considerations, further interference by the UK, perhaps at a military level, would indeed put Scotland at risk. We, the simple public, have only the power of one vote. Sir Keir, an aspiring PM, has shown his colour to be a shade of blue rather than red. Time is short; be careful with your vote. An independent Scotland, minus Trident, would play no part in developing more global aggression. Two world wars proved tragic for many, a third would rock the planet.

Iain R Thomson
Strathglass

FOR me to find myself applauding Keir Starmer for speaking words of wisdom is such a rare event that I must share it in the columns of your esteemed publication.

When Mr Starmer says the deterrent only works if there is a preparedness to use it (as he did recently), he is only stating a truth. Unpopular and unpalatable certainly, but logically irrefutable.

READ MORE: Scotland in 'choice of values' at next election, says Humza Yousaf

It is not possible to maintain a belief in the theory of nuclear deterrence without being prepared to use the Bomb should the deterrence situation break down. This conditional willingness to use the weapon is imagined to be acceptable; and somehow exculpates those who endorse the theory. As if being second to commit mass murder were any less wicked than being first!

This theory of deterrence is so corrupt and depraved that its devotees live in a perpetual fog of confusion, so dense that it blinds them to the immorality of their situation as much as it does the illogicality.

The only moral response to the hoary old conundrum “would you press the button?” is to scream an absolute “No, for God’s sake, not under any circumstances.”

Brian Quail
Glasgow

UNLIKE the overwhelming majority of Scots, at least one person will be very pleased with Starmer’s statement of intent to keep England’s (really America’s) weapons of mass destruction on Scottish soil, thereby ensuring that a silo somewhere in Russia contains at least one nuclear warhead with Greater Glasgow’s name on it.

Damn Jackie Baillie! (not a typo)

John Rutherford
Kelty, Fife

I WAS interested to read Pat Kane’s column inspired by the sad loss to science of Professor Peter Higgs (Higgs inspired us to stay in touch with an optimistic vision of science, Apr 13).

In the 1970s my late partner Bernd Rullkotter wrote his PhD thesis on the subject of Soviet scientific fantasy. He contended that the Soviet or Russian view/expectation of the future was generally utopian while sci-fi of the West was dystopian.

Mary McCabe
Glasgow

AS a retired Marine Superintendent with responsibility for contracting and supervising ship repairs and dry docking, I find my self at a loss to understand why it should take three weeks to fit new hinges to MV Loch Shira. I realise the hinges must be very heavy-duty and the part of the vessel to which they are fitted also. When I refitted a whole vessel I expected the event to take three weeks. That included hull painting, structural damage, electronics, engine room repairs and maintenance. Perhaps there is good reason for the time scale but on the face of it, I can’t see it.

Captain R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian