I WRITE regarding the letter from Leslie and Bill Glassmire (Times, September 21), in which they state that they regret that the Tavistock Town Council would not agree to the mayor, Caroline Keane, joining the Hiroshima-based ?Mayors for Peace? on an official basis. I support the council?s stand on this matter; such a gesture would clearly be political and well beyond the remit of a local authority. Regarding the comments that the use of the word ?atrocities? used in connection with the dropping of two atomic bombs upon Japan by the Americans was merely a ?distraction?; it was rather, in my view, an emotive and offensive word for Tavistock Peace Action Group to use in their letter to the council. For both they and your correspondents are committing the cardinal error of judging an historical event using present day bias of dogma driven hindsight; the great majority of neutral historians, while acknowledging the horrific destruction wreaked by the bombs, are of the view ? taking into account the tenacious fanaticism of the Japanese at the time ? that had conventional warfare continued, more lives, of all nationalities, could have been lost than perished at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the word ?atrocities? is to be used regarding this theatre of war, one feels that it would be more appropriate if directed at the barbaric treatment meted out by the Japanese upon interned women and children, and upon allied prisoners of war. Cllr Ted Sherrell 60 Whitchurch Road Tavistock WE have lived in this area for only two years, but have found Tavistock to be a sophisticated, peace-loving place. It is to be hoped that, next time local government elections come round, candidates will be closely questioned about their decision not to endorse mayor Caroline Keane as a ?Mayor for Peace?. We do not believe the councillors represent the way local people feel. So far, 38 mayors in Britain have joined the call for a nuclear-free world. They represent many of our major cities, including London, Glasgow, Oxford and Cambridge. Why not Tavistock? Is it too small, or too small-minded? And we are astonished at the assertion by Councillors David Farrant and Philip Sanders that the nuclear bombs dropped in 1945 on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not an atrocity. According to atomicarchive.com, an American website, over 100,000 people were killed in the two cities and 94,000 injured, mostly civilians of course. Their deaths undoubtedly saved the lives of some combatants on both sides, but was it really right to kill civilians to protect soldiers? If killing or maiming 194,000 people in a couple of minutes in 1945 was not an atrocity, why does America consider 9/11 an atrocity ? when 3,000 were killed? And wouldn?t we consider it an atrocity if the victims in 1945 had been British rather than Japanese? Elizabeth Ray-Jones Alan Ray-Jones Bluebells Brentor