Nuclear weapons have not worked as a deterrent – so what do we do now?

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The tension between America and North Korea is intensifying (Getty)

The Independent’s Editorial quite clearly lays out the dichotomy of what to do about North Korea and the threats being issued by its leader, Kim Jong-un. Economic sanctions and political dialogue are clearly failing. Military action is increasingly being discussed and, should North Korea launch a missile at Guam or any other US friendly territory, then President Trump will almost certainly launch a reprisal attack. The danger of this, of course, is that it will lead to full warfare in which Seoul and most of the South is very quickly obliterated by conventional and/or nuclear weapons.

Amongst all the commentaries on the likelihood of war it is noticeable that the only mention of nuclear weapons is with reference to North Korea. Will they use them? This brings into very sharp focus the whole issue of nuclear deterrence. Clearly the possession of a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons by the US, UK and the other nuclear powers has not deterred North Korea at all; rather it has encouraged Kim Jong-un to join the nuclear club in order to exert maximum political and military influence if his country is threatened – a position remarkable similar to the US, UK and other nuclear powers.

So what happens now if North Korea does use nuclear weapons? By definition deterrence has failed so do we then retaliate with nuclear weapons and obliterate North Korea and probably South Korea and parts of China and other countries in the region as well? Nuclear weapons are not selective in the way that cruise missiles going through windows in the Iraq War, as we have become accustomed to, are. In a crowded part of the world we are talking millions of dead here and an uninhabitable territory for generations to come. So we can only hope that this nightmare scenario does not happen because neither side is quite that mad.

If we are still around to learn from this experience, will we not be in a better place if we recognise that nuclear weapons have no deterrence value as a first strike weapon and the 1960s concept of second-strike mutually assured destruction (MAD) deterrence would only destroy large parts of the planet. Surely it is better to universally ban nuclear weapons? There would then be every justification in taking very early action – including the use of strong conventional military force – against any country that is detected developing nuclear capability. Kim Jong-un should never have been allowed to get this far.

Robert Forsyth
Deddington

Treat Kim Jong-un as you would a common school bully

To misquote Crocodile Dundee, “that’s not a bomb, this is a bomb”. The North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has again tested a nuclear weapon, claimed to be a hydrogen bomb. He may forget that the United States has about 5,000 nuclear weapons, some of which are being decommissioned but still enough to reduce North Korea to a fairly unpleasant place to live although the dictator has really already achieved this.

We have all met or been threatened by bullies at school, at work or in life generally and some characteristics are the same each time. Generally there is much shouting and threatening, usually accompanied by a warning or a small scale act of violence with the implied threat of much worse to follow if they are not obeyed. The true test of courage is not to react in a more violent way but to treat them as the losers they are and to stand up to them without worsening the situation.

This is a time for the rest of the world, via the UN with all of its nations, to stay their hand and turn their back on him, both financially and through denying him resources. This will not be any easy path as many of the countries citizens will be worse off but it is time to break his hold on his country and hope for a better future for the citizens of North Korea.

Dennis Fitzgerald
Melbourne, Australia

This is how David Davis should negotiate with the EU

Michel Barnier is using the same tactics to “try to educate” us Brits that our Government used to educate the Scottish people at the time of the independence referendum.

David Davis should change his tactics. Calling the EU side “silly” is bound to annoy. If, as he states, he has made progress on many items of negotiation, why does he not tell us what these items are?

His original reason given several weeks ago that he didn’t want to let the opposition know in advance no longer applies. He will already have informed the other team what is our position so now he can let us know our “demands”.

Michael Pate
Preston

David Davis is doing a terrible job of Brexit

We are told to rejoice that having voted for Brexit, the sky has not fallen in as predicted. That could of course be due to the fact that we are still in the EU. In the meantime, the pound sterling has collapsed as international investors have made their assessment of our prospects outside the EU.

The sly plan by David Davis is quite clear. It is to kick Brexit into the long grass, where over a period of time the question of debts and money owed can be forgotten about. It won’t work and we are now in acrimonious dispute with our continental neighbours, thanks to Davis and the other “go whistle” cases. Can no one free us of these cunning stunts?

Dennis James
Stafford

What are our politicians thinking?

So many politicians say they do not agree with Brexit, yet go along with it because it was the will of the people. Very noble. But it is an odd politician who cannot change his/ her mind, particularly when there is information available that was not available at the time of the original decision, or, indeed, if they think it would improve their electoral chances.

Ian Turnbull
Carlisle

A new Brexit slogan

Driving through mid-Wales last week I passed a sign that a farmer had erected in a roadside field. “Leading not Leaving Europe”, it read, which reminded me that this was the title of an article by Gordon Brown on 9 June last year. With Davies-induced chaos increasing but the public mood shifting in the other direction, I suggest it’s time to resurrect this slogan.

Patrick Cosgrove
Shropshire