YOU report the scenario of a Royal Navy officer responsible for the nuclear weapons on a UK submarine being allegedly unfit for duty through drink; fortunately, the boat was in a dock at the time ("Nuclear sub officer sent home as ‘unfit’ for duty", The Herald, October 20).

However, answer me this: if the UK has an independent nuclear deterrent why is HMS Vigilant currently having routine maintenance carried out in a foreign country at a US Navy base in the US State of Georgia? Why are our supposedly independent submarines specifically designed and constructed to carry rented US missiles? Why do our rented US missiles carry nuclear warheads almost identical to their US counterparts in a flagrant abuse of international agreements? Why in Senate business regarding nuclear deterrence is the "independent" UK fleet lumped in with that of the United States? How in anyone’s twisted mind can that be defined as being independent?

Why do successive Westminster administrations allow a significant portion of UK tax revenue to be sucked in by the US military industrial complex creating pointless submarines and aircraft carriers and their weaponry in exactly the manner that former US President Dwight Eisenhower warned in his valedictory address to the US public in 1959? Why? Well, the answer is money. The UK is the second biggest weapons supplier in the world. This is one of the ways the rich get richer, meanwhile Marcus Rashford has to fight to get British kids a decent meal once in a while. Makes me sick to think our elected politicians who could fix it all do absolutely nothing about it.

David J Crawford, Glasgow G12.

I CANNOT understand why the incident of a Royal Navy officer being drunk in charge of nuclear weapons did not make major headline news, either on TV or in the press. Instead it has largely been confined to a few lines or comments quoting "a spokesman’ with the usual platitudes “there are numerous safety checks and processes to protect the safety and use of all weapons aboard submarines”.

Considering the vast amount of time and space dedicated to the coronavirus, of which we have little control, we ought to concentrate on preventing another catastrophe from happening right here on our doorstep, namely a nuclear explosion.

Having nuclear weapons on the Clyde is foolish and risky because of the weapons themselves and from the people "in charge" of them. How can submariners self-isolate, keep two metres apart from one another, wear face coverings or keep their sanity while staying sober? Who monitors their capability, their mental health and their susceptibility to Covid-19?

We are playing with fire by ignoring what is in our backyard.

Susan Martin, Glasgow G73.