PAUL SMITH (Editorial, 23 October) writes that, UCISUl week will be soent each year for the next fifteen missiles' If vou taki the population Britain, that makes a tota i exoen • ture tco.Sonl As l understand it, the cost Trident estimated De esbn. Cruise, as missiles stationed in Bri tain, oreskmcolv COSTIS nothing. where does the extra £143.3bn come MARTIN METEYARD, London E5.
It should have read per week on all military spending.
TURKEY KURDS IRAQ BAHRAIN SAUDI ARABIA opposing Russian MYECr nome v coer nàs ovoce ve response in your columns, whole article by Brian Grogan criticising me Dy wawre • Ray Sirotkin writes (16 October): 'Our primary aim must therefore be to disarm own imperialists, and not to equate with Moscow your granny to suck eggs. My original let- come orl ter starts: 'Ine oresent thred comes from the adventures of a declining imperial Kremlin's atomic defence of the The wav oTtE perialism.
embartassing gustols Defence through ACCORDING Brian TOCaI octoDerr cholcn't for the dissolution of' the Warsay Pact as it is the USA which is the aggressor and because the Warsaw Pact is essentia for the defence of the gains Revolution. the Russian That the USA is the aggressor true ane RUSSIA Qom Abadan The Gult QATAR {OMAN . •: atomic Europear inc ucine 3. Brian says it comrades! Don't teach nucicdi paying Tor tAeM Wal My point is that the Is do not aid the and get in by having the Lask ol ooouoilrg nul perialist pollution?
for should encourage people in une anu-nucicar movelieil our aranents nal support that assertion. But saying should argue for the retention of in e • "red bomb' missing the central importance of the anti-nuclear move1U1 ment 0 Miles 200 way are atomic bombs defensive? At best, Soviet missiles dete but as Brian says, war is Armageddon support •ocialisl naneny the trino ot kussian missiies‹ now doe the extermination of the American and working class 'defend' the 'the vast defence spending of the USSR is totally unjustified Has ne discovered a cheap way or mak Russian you have to support wcayulls the SUDOOSI recent in order to perfect its 'deterrent"? O temerity to think poilution is no more progressive than im GEORGE KEREVAN, Edinburgh Trotskv said that the main defence of the Soviet Union was the unwillingnes of the working classes in th unlberlalsi ock noramers el strategic points or weapons tion for the West's retentios ul lucical • weapons is that mue uooc is ine ageressol 1o prove inis is wrong ll 1 essential that wher tne masses in the : West force la reduction in their countries armaments they should see a East.
In other words, in order to prove that 'red bombs are defensive you have show that their numbers ar related to the size of the capitalist threat. Therefore unless the Soviet bureau automatically scales caly cowiEs ammoav une oeooi of Eastern Europe will neec anti-nuclear movement Now, due to the law of mineven Cononc deve onment that exist all international upturns should recognise that any mass in the East Ilialive courages and lavs the basi for mass initiatives in the West, and vice vers:
Whethe the West will need to see the dismantling of the Warsa Pact belore they make ine final NATO ore smashing uIKlUWIl at the municul waa we muse do is ensure that when one happens the other follows The is nurning into vement into most dramatic argument to internationallsi Lnal 'ordinary person has ever - it's a matter of ic aliu ucal Brian undermines one oi our strongest planks of sup. port; his arguments reduce the role of the Eastern Eur pean working class to one 01 passivity.
LES HARTOP, Coventry Socialist Challenge . 30 October 1980 Page 13
----- pull-quotes -----
Wrong again!
AZERBAIJAN TURKS •Teheran
IRAN LARABS PERSIANS
TURKOMANS BALUCHIS