BILL Brown's letter (March 2) reveals some of the widely held misconceptions of any nuclear exchange.

If strategic weapons such as Trident were used in a first strike or retaliatory response the areas targeted by such weapons would be totally devastated. Blast and fire damage would leave any infrastructure not worth conquering or occupying and because of nuclear fallout would remain uninhabitable for many years, perhaps generations, as radiation would pollute the soil and contaminate everything including water supplies if it fell as rain.

Nevil Shute's 1957 novel On the Beach portrays the results of all-out nuclear war as worldwide devastation and an example in our lifetime, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, which occurred 30 years ago, has resulted in the land around that nuclear plant remaining uninhabitable to this day. The Trident submarines, should they launch their missiles, will have no base to return to as Faslane and Coulport are no doubt prime targets and since Mr Brown lives downwind of the blast area even his house, should it still exist, will not be worth occupying for many years after any such strike.

Today's nuclear weapons are far more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and although some of the populations of these cities survived, their descendants are still living with genetic/cancer problems caused by the radiation of these blasts. Perhaps if John Hershey's Hiroshima was compulsory reading in schools we might find future generations convinced that nuclear weapons, especially those of mass destruction, are pointless and we could take a lead in eliminating the stockpiles which exist in our country and throughout the world.

In an emergency planning exercise in which I was participating one of my counterparts from Argyll was asked what action he would take in the event of a major nuclear strike. After a reflective pause he said: "I'd take my garden chair and best bottle of malt down to the bottom of the garden and watch the wonderful sunset in the sky." I'd be tempted to join him but don't think I'd reach his garden in time.

George McKenzie,

Rubha nan Gall,

48 Ardbeg Road, Rothesay,

Isle of Bute.

I WONDER just which of the few countries with nuclear weapons does Bill Brown (Letters, March 2) think may lodge a nuclear attack on the UK and for what purpose?

The United States, France, India and China have large investments here. There are many Jews and Pakistanis, so Israel and Pakistan would have no cause to attack. Russia is resource rich and has a relatively small and declining population. North Korea has no reason to attack anyone, such would result in its regime being destroyed.

There are hundreds of countries without nuclear "deterrents" or even strong military forces . Some, unlike the UK, are rich in natural resources but have small populations. They have not been attacked and seem not to fear such. Any attack would not be by a state which could be identified but by a terrorist group whose location would probably not be known. Even if so, lodging a counter-attack would cause the death of thousands of innocents.

John Munro,

68 Buccleuch Street, Glasgow.