"There are no circumstances where we would use a nuclear bomb."

That's not the point though is it ? It's a *deterrant*.

Adrian Thomas, CAMBRIDGE,

The point about nuclear weapons is to have them IN CASE the use became urgent. It protects against other nuclear armed powers.
I might add on the ridiculous leftist nonsense at the end that Al Gore's predictions were unscientific, that global warming is far more complex than the Green movement lets on and that the world is not going to flood. That disgraceful organisation, the IPCC, said that AT WORST, sea levels would rise by about 25mm.
IS that 20ft? Or can Al Gore and the Greenies not do basic mathematics?

Richard, Norwich,

Curious to see someone who has learned nothing from history. For what else can one call someone who supposes that a position of military inferiority to an aggressor is a desirable or indeed possible position for a wealthy country to adopt?

Roger Pearse, Ipswich,

nir, all that you say might be true but the question is what significant difference would 100-200 "British" (sic) warheads make to the Iranians, Russians or whoever calculations on top of the thousands of US warheads already in existence, not to mention the French and Israeli arsenals.....

Its doubtful our "independant" detterent could be used without US permission so its hard to imagine a scenario where the US wouldn't deploy its arsenal but would allow the UK to deploy ours.

The UK's client status to the US is fairly humiliating and Trident is the most obvious symbol of our servitude scrapping it would be the biggest step in getting some independance in our foreign policy back. The PM will just have to make do without his toy boats.

SBroadbent, Kent, UK

Nigel Griffiths has more faith in Iran than I do! He has a perfect right to want to ditch Trident, I have a perfect right to want it. He has a perfect right to believe Al Gore, I have a right to be sceptical. And I am.

MP, Nth Lincs, England

If North Korea, Iran or any other less friendly nation (Russia springs to mind here) have or get a nuclear bomb, who are they more likely to use, or threaten to use, it against? There is no threat to use a nuclear bomb against Iran or North Korea, precisely because they have not yet reached the point of having one of their own. Russia has recently threatened Europe with nuclear weapons, and presumably has most weapons targeted at the USA. Unlike many other weapons, the money spent on Trident is spread over 10 years, so £2 billion a year rather than the rather more emotive (and incorrect) use of £20 billion (at one go). If Nigel Griffiths, or anybody else for that matter, could guarantee, absolutely, that nobody would ever threaten us with a nuclear weapon, then I'd be quite happy to allow the government to remove them. However, until that time...........

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

I have no tme for ban the bombers,but all public money must be counted for,how and why? What Oliver Kamm never explain
his defencive-language,why do we need,and what we going to
do with?
Cllr Ken Tiwari(Oxford UK)

Cllr Ken Tiwari, Oxford, United Kingdom

I agree that the world does not need nuclear weapons, but the decision to keep them has already been made. As a nation we have already demonstrated how far we will go to protect our future oil interests. Our nuclear capability will be used against nations that may not at this time be considered our enemies. I think the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used is high; note the change in direction from massive bombs to more selective 'tactical' weapons.

Duncan, West Yorkshire, UK

nir, the US is perfectly able to destroy the earth with it's own nuclear arsenal, it doesn't need to use our threadbare contribution. Trident was a system put in place by the UK because the UK still wanted to play superpower, it was allowed by the US because it tied the UK into military agreements advantageous to the US. We could probably do without either aspect.

Nobody knows the actual cost of Trident to the UK, but years ago it was suggested that the cost per submarine would probably run the NHS for a year or two.

As Mr Griffithws suggests, it is difficult to imagine the circumstances where the UK would sanction the use of UK nuclear weapons. It is horribly easy to imagine the US doing so.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

"(Nigel Griffiths) can foresee no circumstances where this country or its territories would be threatened by a nuclear weapons state, where we would retaliate with a nuclear strike, or where the threat of a nuclear strike by the UK would shape their actions."

Phew - that's alright then! And of course Nigel is the heir to Nostradamus so he must be right.

JK, London, UK

sorry, but your arguments are poor... you write

"For all the posturing of the US against Iran and North Korea, not even George Bush is suggesting that a nuclear weapon will be used against those regimes or their people."

Really? 1) There has been many talks of using Bunker Buster nuclear weapons to PREVENT Iran from getting nuclear weapons

2) In case Iran gets nuclear weapons and uses them do you still think the west won't want to retaliate? And do you think it is such an unlikely scenario the west shouldn't be prepared for? When Hitler had his V2 he didn't hesitate for a second to fire them on London...

Sorry, but with countries like Iran only months away from getting the Bomb the world is becoming more dangerous, not more safe...

nir, Jerusalem, Israel