IN the unlikely event that the Ministry of Defence estimates for new build (£30bn) and future annual costs (£3bn) are accurate (that would be a first), the main argument against replacing the Trident nuclear submarines is not the annual or total cost, as suggested by Ian Lakin (Letters, September 1). It is simply that nuclear weapons are now completely pointless except as a national status symbol.

It is nonsense to suggest that they are a deterrent that protects Britain from a possible future nuclear attack. That risk is now infinitesimal. The old threatening USSR of the Cold War era is no longer, and although Russia still has a nuclear capability, there is no reason why Putin or one of his successors would see any strategic advantage in launching a nuclear attack on this small and relatively insignificant nation. Despite the pretensions of our politicians and clinging on to US coat-tails, the UK is no longer a major power on the world stage and it is time we recognised and accepted that fact.

If Russia still has ambitions to protect its western borders and expand, it is more likely to seek to regain control of some of the Eastern European countries which were formerly part of the USSR. Would Britain or the United States risk being first to use nuclear warheads to deter such a military invasion? I think not.

So is Britain in danger of attack from any of the other nuclear powers – the US, France, Israel, or even at some time Iran? And how would it benefit China, India or North Korea to reduce to ruins this small island on the other side of the world from them? Why on earth would any one of them ever wish take such catastrophic action?

The plain fact today is that the possession of nuclear weapons is no longer needed as a defence against any likely attack. Trident is simply a grossly expensive status symbol, allowing the United Kingdom to strut the world stage and retain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Is that worth even £3bn a year?

Mr Lakin may think that sum is trivial, but it would be better spent on improving welfare benefits at home, or on increased international aid for millions of desperate peoples in deprived countries in Africa and elsewhere around the world.

Iain A D Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

IAN Lakin accuses “the nationalists” of going on about the financial costs of Trident as if it were a morally neutral purchase, like buying a car or a house. I have news for him. Even if it cost £50 and a couple of Persil coupons, I would still hate it with a perfect hatred.

Trident is the world’s most powerful machine for the killing of human beings. As a weapon of mass destruction, it belongs to the category of prohibited weapons. It devastates all legal and moral limits, which is why the representatives of every religious group in the country have denounced it.

Either that, or I am wrong and MrLakin and the pro-bombers are right. It is a sensible precaution for an uncertain future. Every country in the world should follow our prudent example and acquire its own “independent nuclear deterrent”. And the world races on to inevitable global suicide.

This logic is undeniable and inescapable. Why are pro-bombers blind to this?

Brian M Quail,

2 Hyndland Avenue, Glasgow.

THE unilateral declaration by the Chancellor George Osborne to upgrade Faslane without parliamentary support (“Osborne condemned over £500m Faslane referendum”, The Herald, August 31) is high-handed, irresponsible and provides the trigger for another referendum.

Roddy Mac Donald,

1 Glenmount Place, Ayr.

THE true cost of the No vote last September became chillingly clear when George Osborne sailed on to the Clyde to confirm that without so much as a by your leave, the Conservative Government will continue to impose Trident weapons of mass destruction on Scottish waters, even though the democratically elected Scottish Government and fifty eight out of Scotland's fifty nine Westminster MPs oppose its renewal. The Scottish public must leave Mr Osborne, his boss David Cameron and their Conservative Government in no doubt of Scotland's robust opposition to nuclear weapons remaining on Scottish soil. There must be no ifs, no buts, no Trident.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

READING Iain Macwhirter's article (“One-way trip that is beckoning for Trident”, The Herald, September 1), I was astounded to read that nuclear weapons couldn't be located at Devonport "because of safety considerations".

I may have missed any earlier reports on this, but would ask "the safety of whom?"

There are far fewer people in south-west England than west Scotland - surely the UK Government is not suggesting that area is more worthy of protecting than the Glasgow area?

Alan Anderson,

42 St Baldred's Road, North Berwick.