As usual, Ron Ferguson brings enlightenment in his column (November 5). After the sophistries of politicians and Ministry of Defence spokespersons regarding the inquest into the death of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, it is refreshing to read such a clear exposition on the morality of nuclear weapons and their unavoidable interface with humans.

Scientists and technologists escape responsibility for the horrors that can spring from science by the clever excuse of the amorality of science. Yet the link between science and humanity is irrefutable. Just as Gordon Gentle's life may have been saved by the use of technology so, too, the deaths of 300,000 Japanese (95% civilians) could have been saved by resisting the application of technology. Thus, a set of indisputable, humane values is essential.

The International Court of Justice offered such a value when it made clear that systems such as Trident, indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction, are illegal.

Morality, whether derived from human reason or theologically-based rules, has to rely on a person's imaginative capacity to empathise with his or her fellow beings. It staggers the imagination to think about what the enormous sums spent on nuclear weapons could have done for education, health, social services and the maintenance of well- resourced, conventionally-equipped armed forces.

It seems some, including leaders of states such as the UK, US, France and Russia and, perhaps, Paul Tibbets (the pilot of the plane that dropped the Hiroshima bomb), lack such imagination. As Ron Ferguson's article implies, the trillions of dollars that have been spent on instruments of mass murder are a theft from the poorest people in the world.

Mhairi Hodgart, 18 Atholl Gardens, Kilwinning.