DURING the Cold War, while serving in the military in the 1960s, I received nuclear, biological and chemical warfare training.

During this we were informed by our instructors that should Russia attempt to attack/invade Britain they were unlikely to use nuclear weapons as this would make subsequent occupation difficult due to residual radiation, as well as destroying the infrastructure, ie power stations, factories, motorways, railways etc.

The consensus of opinion was that they would favour the use of biological agents, which after disseminating the population could be neutralised, allowing occupation with the minimum of force.

To that end we were informed that only three Russian military aircraft would be required to contaminate the whole of Britain with such agents and that on an almost weekly basis the RAF was intercepting Russian aircraft encroaching on UK airspace, although there was no suggestion that they were carrying such weapons.

Now, 50 years hence, Russia is again being associated with non-conventional weapons, ie nerve agents etc, and as frequently reported the RAF is still intercepting Russian aircraft encroaching on UK airspace.

Who knows what else they now possess, hence this is one of the reasons we need to maintain our military capabilities to a strategic level, whatever the cost, and not make ourselves vulnerable.

During times of conflict, not all countries play by conventional rules.

Name and address supplied