Most of the technology used in nuclear power programmes is “dual-use capable”, that is it can be used in either nuclear power programmes or to make nuclear weapons. Firstly, nuclear power simply is not the best way of offsetting the carbon emissions that are fuelling global warming. An independent report for the European Commission, which looked at the entire lifecycle of nuclear power from cradle to grave, found that nuclear power would emit around 50 per cent more CO2 than windpower.Secondly, building six new nuclear power stations would take far longer than he seems to believe. When confronted with that anachronistic remnant, the Welsh language (a reminder of the original un-Englishness of Wales) they resort in typical colonial fashion to paranoid fantasies about the natives. This quasi-colonial mindset would appear to explain the widespread sensitivity of some English to the speaking of Welsh.I am reminded of a comment made by a Canadian acquaintance on the “problem” of the French language in Quebec: “Why don’t they just speak English? After all (God damn it!), we defeated them on the Abraham Heights.” The same would seem to apply to the Welsh.WILLIAM GOLDSMITH Washington, Tyne and Wear Nuclear warning Sir: When calling for six new nuclear power stations to be built in the UK over the next decade Digby Jones ignores three key facts (report, 10 November). The decline of Welsh in this age-group was checked and reversed some years ago.

The decline of Scots Gaelic will inevitably continue for quite a while, but the number of its speakers on present trends should start to increase somewhere around 25 years hence.JOHN PETER HUDSON Middleton Stoney, OxfordshireSir: I think Sarian Grerelle (letter, 6 November) may be on to something with her notion of “historical guilt” as an explanation for English beliefs about what may be called the “conspiratorial” use of the Welsh language in Wales today.English people seem to want to believe that Wales is just another part of England; after all, they all speak English and are quite happy to do so until an Englishman – or two – appears. But that does not absolve Bush and Blair of responsibility for that mistake, or of the duty to be more honest now about the insurgency. It is scarcely credible that it is simply Sunni supremacists, or “Saddam hold-outs” plus al-Qa’ida sympathisers from other countries. It must surely contain a large element of radicalised Iraqi nationalism.

Blair cites opinion polls carried out by the coalition but never published to support his assertion that the insurgents do not have popular support. But the opinion polls carried out for independent media companies show that they do have the support of a significant minority. More telling, an early poll found that Iraqis were evenly divided over whether the invasion was a national humiliation or a liberation. That is where the post-war problems lay and Bush is to blame for not ensuring that enough troops were sent to do the job.Fundamentally, however, Blair is right that Iraq is not Vietnam. The people of Iraq want elections and most accept the US presence as a difficult price to pay for democracy This is a post-Cold War war. Yet so many attitudes to it are stuck in old assumptions.That is why it is wrong to sneer at Bush’s simplicities, when he cited Japan and Germany after the Second World War as cases where some people thought it unrealistic to expect democracy to take hold. And that is why it is wrong to carp at Blair, when he cited the examples of the central European countries that have joined the European Union.

Of course they are not like Iraq, but are Bush and Blair therefore wrong in principle? No. It is simply too easy to say that in an ideal world we would have gone straight from Afghanistan to Darfur, and left Iraq under the stable misery of Saddam Hussein.Bush and Blair may be simplistic, but they are right.j.rentoul independent.co.ukThe writer is chief political commentator for ‘The Independent on Sunday’ Steve Richards is away
More from John Rentoul. Sir: What a pompous pain in the cultural posterior Philip Hensher proved to be in his analysis of the cultural content of the BBC’s output (12 November). BBC fights for the arts in a new world of television choice
Sir: What a pompous pain in the cultural posterior Philip Hensher proved to be in his analysis of the cultural content of the BBC’s output (12 November).

According to Hensher all you need to do is to stick a camera in front of a painting, play or pianist; add a few comments from intelligent critics and the job ought to be done. How many would watch these Hensher offerings on BBC 1 is a reasonable question. Not many, given the vast range of choice available to today’s viewers.The BBC, quite rightly, has to live up to the Reithian formula “to inform, educate and entertain”, not just for a small intellectual elite, but for the wider audience who represent the licence-fee payers. Popularising great art is a difficult but essential objective for the BBC. Hensher displays real arrogance when he dismisses the Rolf Harris series on great painters which gave enjoyment and education to millions He says Harris is remote, grand and a monstrous egotist. On the contrary, he is a warm, clever, talented and natural communicator who can reach out to millions who would normally hit the channel changer if we used the Hensher formula for great art programmes.I endorse Hensher’s welcome for the new Culture Show and the BBC 4 content, but don’t let’s pretend we’re back in the 1960s when many great cultural programmes received large audiences because there was little choice.