There were two misstatements just in Michael McGough's first sentence: my name wrong; and I never mentioned CND (A reasonable reduction, Letters December 2).

As to the rest, simply labelling something a “deterrent” begs so many questions. Who needs to be deterred? Why? Why do only nine states out of 192 feel the need for a nuclear “deterrent”?

While any weapon may be a deterrent to a potential attack, there has to be a realistic possibility that it could actually be used. But if it is ever used, it has failed in its alleged purpose. Can it be guaranteed never to fail, for whatever reason? This is the logical fallacy.

When the consequences of even a single nuclear detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation, malfunction, or design, are so horrific, the only way to ensure that it never does happen is to abolish them altogether. In fact, we have been near to a nuclear holocaust many times over the past 75 years. I recommend Mr McGough to research some of these potentially catastrophic close calls and, in particular, seek out the film “The man who saved the world”.

On climate change, I just wonder what is Mr McGough's expertise that enables him to dismiss thousands of top scientists, not to mention the actual evidence of record global temperatures, melting Arctic and Antarctic ice, rising sea levels, increasing extreme weather events, wildfires, and a million species threatened with extinction.

Frank Jackson,

Kingsmoor Road, Harlow