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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article