Right of Self Defence

SIR,-The perplexity expressed by "Jotter" on this subject recently seemed to arise primarily from the scope of the right of self-defence in modern circumstances. But the Pope himself has made it clear that this right is not unconditional; for example, on October 19, 1953, when he said :
"The need to defend oneself against any injustice is not enough to justify recourse to the violent method of war. When the harm done by this latter cannot compare with that of 'tolerated injustice', one may be obliged to tolerate the injustice. What we have said applies particularly to A B C warfare,. atomic, biological, chemical
Similarly. the Holy Father's teference on September. 30, 1954, to -the possibility of nuclear warfare being lawfully used in selfdefence was qualified as follows : "And should the evil consequences of adopting this method of warfare ever become so extensive as to pass utterly beyond the control of man, then indeed its use must be rejected as immoral. In that event, it would no longer be a question of defence against injustice and necessary protection of legitimate possessions, but of the annihilation, pure and simple, of all human life within the affected
area. That is not lawful on any title."
Since then. the Pope has repeatedly condemned the nuclear arms race as " this homicidal, this suicidal madness" (Easter Message, 19561 and "this useless waste" and " this terrifying and wilful race towards death " (Note to Japanese Envoy, Palm Sunday, 1957). We may be sure that these words with all that they imply were not lightly chosen.
It is useless and dangerous to cling, through fear or supposed expediency, to the illusion of " nuclear deterrence." If we are Christians, we must have faith enough to rely on the weapons of Christ. " Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will call on the name of the Lord our God." (Ps. xix. 8).
Charles S. Thompson (Editor, PUS Bulletin). 93 Malmstone Avenue.
Merstha m, Redhill, Surrey.