Richard, Norwich

The Kaiser and his cabinet not only expected but desired war in 1914, and had been actively planning for war from 1912.

The arguments for nuclear disarmament assume certain common assumptions and interests between all parties, nation-states or otherwise, who could conceivably acquire and deploy nuclear weapons. If just one group doesn't share, or doesn't believe themselves to share, that position the case for nuclear disarmament disintegrates.

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction, while no longer effective against all possible enemies is still effective against many, including most of those currently most dangerous.

While we should not stop searching for technological, political and strategic ways of rendering nuclear weapons redundant no government, midnful of their primary responsibility to their own democratic electors, could refuse nuclear weapons or permit potentially hostile regimes to develop them.

Tom Foster, London, UK

Simply stating there is no rationale for UK nuclear weapons is hardly a rationale arguement. For those that are not able to deploy rationale arguements or understand one (even if they disagree with Mr. Kamm's view ) there last defence is to muddy the water with random statements of what they consider fact but is actually opinion. Nuclear weapons clearly deterred the Soviets so there is evidence of there value as a deterrence. As Mr. Kamm acknowledges they do not deter others from building them, they simply provide us with some independent protection in the event they are succesful in developing their own "Bomb". Further the reason Iran and Korea want to develop WMD is for the same reason any aggressive, intolerent and absolutist regime wants to develop a more advanced milatary; so they expand their power and influence over others. The only thing balancing this is our willingness to stop them now or in the event thet are succesful the deterrence effect of our weapons v. their ambition

Ben , New York, USA

Joe in Edinburgh:

When a Prime Minister or President of a First World country starts ranting about the need to eliminate another member state of the UN, your concerns about unfairness and hypocrisy in relation to Iran may become relevant.

melk, Cincinnati, USA

There is no rationale for a UK nuclear weapon of any kind - including our tactical weapons.

We can't even run our own country coherently, let alone see a clear direction in world politics. Who on earth is going to threaten what is left of the british ethos and way of life?

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

nuclear weapons are a useful tool however the replacement of trident is expensive and unnecessary
What is wrong with keeping nuclear bombs and dropping them from planes , surely much cheaper and far more reliable.

With the utterly abysmal and despicable way this government treats the armed forces ,who in the future will want to join a shrinking ,underfunded navy to sail in these highly complex submarines ?

The iranians don't need to develop their own weapon they can just hop on a submarine straying into iranian waters and take all the ipods

Guy, hamburg, Germany

Iran and North Korea will keep building anyway.

Posession of nuclear weapons does not serve as a deterrent, it inspires less secure and stable countries to attempt to build their own.

Hannah, Telford,

So it is right for us to develop a nuclear program and continue with this in order to maintain a mutual destruction protection but not Iran.

Would this be a little hypocritical, we have nothing to fear from anyone as the EU and America would protect its interests here but Iran has a lot to fear from the Americans.

Iran knows it is Americas intention to ensure oil supplies and as it is sitting on a very large amount it is only time before they are invaded.

joe, Edinburgh, Scotland

This debate would get much more interesting if Trident was based in the great city of London (since this is what its protecting?).

Derek, Dollar, Scotland

So, it's just a toy for the egomaniacs in Downing Street.

Eddie Reader, birmingham, england

Well, for my part, I quite agree with Oliver Kamm's line.

Necessarily, only those states possessing nuclear weapons, should be allowed to retain them, with a future or present hope or disarming.
But Blair was quite right. Without weapons of our own, we are vulnerable. And a major war can occur surprisingly fast - who expected a major war in 1914?
Finally, the point of a deterrent is in the NATO policy of "no first use", but overwhelming retaliation. The idea is to make the cost of a nuclear attack so high as to be politically impossible.

Richard, Norwich,

Absolutely effectiveness alone justifes the decision to replace
Trident. The other valid reasons for replacing Trident are just
icing on the cake.

Denver Watt, Osaka,

We do not have an independant deterrent,try pointing it at a target the USA does not agree with even if we were under threat.I may be behind the times but at one time trident could not be launched by us without the relevant software codes from the Americans.As for anarchic international order,it seems to have appeared with the help of those already in posession of nuclear weapons,ie USA ,Israel,Pakistan,N.Korea,some are breaking the NPTothers have not even signed up to it.This comment is not an advocation of nuclear free for all,just less hypocracy,lets get rid of all nuclear weapons.those who cannot manufacture them will,sooner or later,buy them.

JohnP, Newcastle, UK

The same arguments given above could be used to justify everyone from Algeria to Zambia developing their own nuclear weapons - who wouldn't want to be in the Royal Enclosure?
Unconstrained proliferation will be a disaster, so what arguments can be developed to convince states that they do not need H-bombs?

Cyril Berkeley, KL, Malaysia