Unilateral disarmement? Wake up. Like it not, nuclear weaponary buys you respect and a place around the table of world politics. It's a quaint thought that we could abandon our military and bcome neutral 'like the swiss'. But it is also a pathetic one - I disagree with ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, with medieval warlords in Sierra Leone and with mysogenistic religious zealots trying to keep Afghanistan in the 10th century. Without the bravery and the kit to back it up, our moral assertions count for nothing.

roy pinnock, London,

The timing of this vote has everything to do with Blair and his obsession with creating a legacy; a legacy that attempts to give the British public the idea that the Labour Party is strong on defence.

Alex, London,

Trident should be scrapped ,we need nuclear power stations not nuclear weapons but if we did we can drop them from planes. Better still britain could just become neutral like the swedes and swiss and stop grandstanding like egotistical idiots.
Blair and Brown have spent enough of this countries future on unreformed policies to keep them in power. this is just wasting more cash.The generation of enemies that Blair has created with the Iraq war debacle will not be quashed or appeased with the nuclear threat , the money should be spent on retention of forces personnel.Blair and Brown have so much to answer for ..........but they never will

Guy, Hamburg,

Peter Riddell is incorrect to state asking for a postponement is a diversion. The existing Trident system has many more years left in it.

Britain should not make a decision on something this significant (i) before the NPT talks in 2010, or (ii) while the global situation is so uncertain, and we do not know what nuclear capacity we may need in the future.

The vote here and now is nothing to do with Britain's defence responsibilities, and everything to do with Mr Blair looking for a legacy.

Stephen Tall, Oxford, UK

Just another example of how British governments aren't fit for purpose
1) Not independant. The US makes them and controls them. Any British use is inconceivable without US puppetry.
2) The Army is in meltdown with overstretch and poor equipment.
If my roof has blown off do I really care about an insurance policy protecting me against invasion from Mars?

eddie reader, birmingham, uk

We did not change our defence posture for the Red Brigades or the Baader-Meinhof and yet both posed a greater threat to EU governments than Al-Qaeda which is an overblown spectre the Americans have inflated with Hollywood panache.

I do not think bin Laden and his friends should determine the strategic defence posture of my country; France has a more sensible approach.

One thing that will never happen in Britain is investment in a large conventional army nor will conscription raise the manpower. Britain should cease the peacekeeping game and start acting like a military power rather than international social workers. No more Bosnias, no more Kosovos, no more Iraqs, no Darfur.

Observer, Leeds, England

I marvel at the sheer inconsistency of the anti-nuke position. Iran is "entitled" to nuclear weapons, but we must give them up just as the mad mullahs acquire them. The cold war is "over", yet more countries today are nuclear armed than at its height. Nuclear weapons are terrifying, except for Britain's, which don't deter anyone. Nuclear cooperation with the US proves that the UK is no longer independent, but defence cooperation with Europe would be a marvellous thing. They are not really our nuclear weapons, since we buy some components, yet the effort of developing will exhaust our engineering resources. Gorbachev is right to insist the UK must give up its nukes, yet Russia constantly upgrades its own.

There may be a good argument against nuclear weapons, but for anyone to base a decision on such a parcel of contradictions would be a huge risk.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US