A CALL for a reduction in military spending is labelled naive and ill-timed by Paul Morley and John Dawson (Letters, March 10).

True to Cold War warrior-speak, only a strong military and nuclear weapons keep us safe from Russian tyranny. This is a fairy tale used to bolster arms sales, Nato expansion, a US-dominated economic system, and scare some people witless. As we witness the destruction of Ukraine and recognise that the threat of a nuclear war/accident draws closer (and our extinction sealed), this is exactly the time to call for disarmament.

The last time the UK exercised its military might was in Afghanistan. It ended, after 20 years and a spend of almost £40 billion of UK taxpayers money, in abject failure. The Taliban are back in power, the country’s devastated and the population starving. Our military intervention in Iraq was also a disaster. One direct consequence was the rise of ISIS.

As for the UK’s nuclear stockpile, which the government has just committed to increasing by 40 per cent: they’re unimaginably expensive, dangerous and controlled by the US. Our ballistic missiles are leased from the US and we would never be allowed to use them without Washington’s approval. If it came to a nuclear war, the US would no doubt use its own arsenal, some of which is sited in Europe. So we could get rid of our nuclear capability and instead properly fund the NHS, schools, libraries, sports, social care, national parks, and so on.

For the sake of Ukraine, military escalation must be opposed or this war could drag on for months, even years. Militaristic chauvinism rationalises waste, suffering and death. When asked in 1996 about the half a million children in Iraq under five years old who died from US-imposed sanctions, Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied: “We think the price is worth it.” Support for the military industrial complex only leads to this “price” being paid by the most vulnerable.

Bruce McLeod

Otterburn