You've opened my mind to the complex and tyrannical realities of modern warfare. I'm not sure I truly understand the philosophy and logistics of deterrence, the lethal game of strategic threat and counter threat nor the enigmatic rubrics of intelligence. You tell me that it is a deterrent to guarantee the security of nations and a step has to be taken to reduce the building of such weapons and that any nuclear threat has to be neutralised. I understand the point you are making and I have read the papers you have sent. I've studied the words, read the theories but I can see I have never really understood the matter nor the mechanism of men and their weapons. Yes, I do grasp the horrendous danger of nuclear weapons and that such weapons loom over mankind like a death warrant. I also understand that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented and I agree with your comment that low yield tactical nuclear weapons have a place in defensive arsenals. Any threat of immediate retaliation by a potent striking force should deter any aggressor but surely such nuclear deterrence has become a suicide pact which is conceived in fear?

You write that no men, no group or country should ever be allowed to control such weapons so that they can bring others to their knees by their use or threat. I agree with your comments entirely, the world cannot afford to face the reality of nuclear terrorism and that nations have to act now in concert to ban such weapons by all possible means - even if necessary by force of arms (ie Iraq). Can peace be found in such a hideous and brutal action? How strange it is to realise that peace should be sought by seeking war. Yet again I begin to come up against the morality of such action and the choices that have to be made. I do not disagree with your comments You also tell me that the US is doing what has to be done to keep the peace but to my mind, fear and suspicion twists men's minds. You also mention the fact that no civilised nation would use such weapons for anything but deterrence. Your words and papers create a ghastly spectre and conjure up many images in my mind. The alternatives you've set out are clear and I wonder at the madness of men. Surely deterrence only prevents a sneak attack in peace time. If tensions mount and war becomes inevitable, the logic becomes flimsy. You've made me sift the causes of peace and war but does the way to peace lie through strength? I am not certain I entirely agree with you.

Can we purge the world from creating further weapons? Are we actively seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely? After decades of dialogue it would seem we can only control them. The agreements reached between the US and Russia are rather cynical regarding the reduction in stockpiles. What difference does it make if 1,000 or 5,000 weapons exist? Surely, how many warheads opposing sides have is immaterial to the point of absurdity. I begin to understand the paradox. They are not a shield are they? In a time of crises they can become a dangerous threat? We should not be talking about strategic arms reduction but complete strategic arms elimination. It is joining with others to not only suppress the spread of nuclear weapons technology but to eliminate such weapons from our armouries completely. Yet the American's actively seek to enhance their nuclear weapons technology to devise greater and more horrific means of killing. I find it confusing. if we want to eliminate such weapons why do we continually seek to enhance their technology?