I’M writing in response to a letter from Mark and Martin Webb regarding defence spending that appeared in the November 13 Wiltshire Times.

While I’m inclined to agree with you on the need for the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent, as far as I can see we are unlikely to be targeted by nuclear weapons or any other response of mass destruction and we probably don’t need the number we have.

I did believe it was necessary during the Cold War as our number one threat was the same as the US and our membership of NATO should have put us under the US nuclear umbrella as did most of the other NATO members who did not have nuclear weapons. At this moment I would feel comfortable with scrapping them altogether.

I cannot see the point of the two giant aircraft carriers currently under construction other than an operation similar to the Falklands war and could be avoided by making sure another invasion does not take place, perhaps a larger fleet of smaller ships is an alternative.

I would be most grateful for anyone with a view on the two points could take the trouble to write in and enlighten me with their points of view.

One thing I’m totally sure of is there must be no further reductions in the size of the Army.

Anything below the 100,000 mark is too small. It would be ideal to have the capability to mount two brigade sized deployments simultaneously.

One of the problems with Iraq was that the large number of troops at the beginning of the operation was reduced too quickly.

We needed to have the capacity to endure, which implied large numbers to enable us to operate in this environment for longer.

The numbers we had at the start of the campaign would at some stage be required during the stabilisation operations that were to follow.

The stabilised operations could be greatly shortened if large numbers were deployed in the first place.

And also Afghanistan people were no longer just the environment, they were the object itself, the task was to gain the people’s trust and loyalty (hearts and minds).

All this is very manpower intensive, of course. Technology will enable but it cannot replace manpower and the human element.

Last but not least, 1968 was the only year of the 20th century that a British soldier was not killed on active service somewhere in the world. There will always be work for the Army.

J R Hawkins, Ramsbury Walk, Trowbridge