It is ironic that news of Keir Starmer’s plan to restate Labour’s commitment to “a ‘triple lock’ for the UK’s nuclear deterrent” (Keir Starmer to declare Labour as ‘party of national security’, 2 June) emerged on the same day that Toshiko Tanaka, a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, addressed a spellbound meeting in London – organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Quakers – about her childhood experiences in 1945.
She spoke of seeing the initial explosion that killed every one of her classmates. She recounted regaining consciousness with a mouth full of dirt, running home to a mother who could not recognise her own badly burnt daughter, and smelling the lingering stench of burning flesh as bodies were cremated. To this day, she struggles to sleep as new sores break out on her skin, and cannot see a grilled tomato without remembering the ghastly sight of skin peeling off the dying who staggered through her neighbourhood like zombies.
Through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the UK is committed to the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world. Starmer should formulate policy based on our legal and moral obligations, not a calculating attempt to win votes by looking tougher than the Tories.
Prof Nick Megoran
School of geography, politics and sociology, Newcastle University
• I agree with Jeremy Corbyn’s opinions of Keir Starmer’s spending priorities and his conclusions, but I take issue with his view of the actions of Russia (Stockpiling nuclear weapons? That will do nothing for national security, Keir Starmer, 5 June). In 2014, Vladimir Putin made it clear that Russia needs neutral buffer states such as Ukraine. Russia lost about 27 million citizens last time it was invaded. It does not have the luxury of oceans on two sides and friendly neighbours on the other two. It would have been simple for Nato and Putin to negotiate neutrality guarantees, but instead Nato pursued a policy intended to plant missiles on the Russian border.
The US knew such a policy would force Putin to act, thereby donating the “moral high ground” to the west. The responsibility for this war in Ukraine lies not with Russia but the US. It is not Russia that poses a threat to world peace, but US militarism.
Andrew Aikman
Forres, Moray
• Jeremy Corbyn is right – our political leaders are sticking their heads deeply in the sand. He could have added that if it’s possible for something to go wrong then you can be certain that one day it will. We may escape nuclear war, but accidental nuclear attack will, one day, happen. We’ve been extremely lucky to have escaped this so far, but eventually our luck will run out, unless we put a stop to this madness.
Norman Rimmell
Darley Dale, Derbyshire
• “There are several examples that show the threat of nuclear retaliation has failed to deter an invasion,” says Jeremy Corbyn. This misrepresents the significance of nuclear weapons. The key point is: no nuclear-armed country has ever been invaded. This is the deterrent power of these awful weapons, and history shows them to have been highly effective in their role as defensive weapons.
Alex Hamilton
Killarney Heights, Sydney, Australia
• Jeremy Corbyn writes: “Security is not the ability to threaten and destroy your neighbour. Security is getting on with your neighbour.” This may be true in the comfortable world of Islington, but how does Mr Corbyn propose that the people of Ukraine, the Baltic states or Poland – and ultimately the UK – “get on” with Vladimir Putin and his forces? One cannot help but be reminded of Neville Chamberlain.
Ted Schrecker
Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
