Too bad the world isn't the nice place Mr. Whitfield wishes (and perhaps believes) it to be. Unfortunately, a sound foreign policy cannot be predicated on the desire to "make friends" or on others' good intentions. Like it or not, the UK is a country that matters in world affairs. Rogue states and those inclined to support terrorism, among others, would welcome any decision by the UK to eschew nuclear weapons. Unless Labour and other people in the UK are willing to accede to these states' and their surrogates' demands, it would behoove them to ignore Mr. Whitfield's naive and foolish advice. Moreover, the resignation of Mr. Griffiths, and other like-minded politicians, should be welcomed by people of good will all over the world.

David A. French, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

The Trident-type submarine is, in reality, a pacifists dream. Out at sea, underwater, it is the target that any enemy must first destroy or suffer the consequences. Any enemy of peace must first neutralize this hidden vessel of retaliation before they can then select targets on land, and by doing so, keeps the land safe from a first attack. The nuclear missile submarine is a paradox of warfare. If any single weapon ever lived up to the Latin proverb that: "If you seek peace, prepare for war". or "Si vis pacem, para bellum, it is the Trident. The submarine-missile combination is the best defensive and offensive weapon ever devised by man. To discard them in the name of economy or the politically correct notion that to be disarmed is to be safe, would be folly. Nay, when all the Free Worlds weapons are all undersea, waiting patiently for war to come, peace will be upon the land as long as the good are ready for war from under the ocean.

Charles Norris, Los Angeles, California, USA

How brave for Mr Griffiths to resign and get his 15 minutes of fame. You can't help wondering whether his 'principles' would have been so important had Mr Brown been the Prime Minister.

Throughout Tony Blair's Premiership he has never hid away from, not only taking but defending unpopular Government decisions - often taking the flak for what has come out of the Treasury eg the 25p pension rise and fuel duty.

On this and many other issues the Chancellor sits back and allows his supporters to undermine the Prime Minister.

Note to Mr Brown: You may think this may help you in, fact you and your treacherous gang are making the Labour Party look like some looney left 80's revivial......and we know what a great electoral success that was! Nuclear Free Zones anyone?

Gary Pepworth, PONTRIEUX, France

Those who oppose renewing trident must surely have amazing crystal balls that can see into the future and predict with precise accuracy what will happen in this turbulent world of ours. They must also have a very clouded view of history. It was only the development of nuclear weapons by the US, and their subsequent use against Japan, that stoped Stalin from occupying the rest of Europe after the end of the second world war. Indeed if it wasnt for the threat posed by nuclear weapons it is easily conceivable that the whole of Europe today would be a communist state. Idealistically i would love a world free from nuclear weapons, realistically i understand their importance as a deterant and the niaevity that would be involved in the UK relinquishing its nuclear capability. We must not allow such idealists to threaten the long term security of the UK.

J W Randall, Edinburgh,

The sixties, seventies and eighties politicians who defended the use of nuclear weaponry clearly stated that the true purpose of a nuclear deterrent was to discourage a rogue nation state from escalating a conventional war into a nuclear war. At the same time the necessity of owning our own deterrent was justified by politicians imagining a scenario where the UK could be cowed into submission by the mere threat of an attack by a nuclear power. The deterrent value of each approach being 'do not attack us or you will be annihilated too'.
Do we really think that the threat of total annihilation is much of a threat to despots, terrorists and those seriously unbalanced national leaders who are apt to slaughter their own populations anyway?
Perhaps our money would be better spent on improving our defensive capabilities and creating friends around the world rather than enemies. I am sure that not many of us would find it attractive to live in a post nuclear society anyway.

Jeff Whitfield, Chorley, UK

If the issue is cost alone, aside from the international value in sustaining nuclear capability, then the £20bn cited above covers the estimated cost of building four submarines. The original White paper suggests this does not include the much larger through-life cost of nuclear submarine maintenance/refits/disposals, and also the cost of sustaining the nuclear warhead itself. Combining these costs together to create a genuine total through life cost of a submarine-based nuclear deterrent would lead to a cost significantly higher than the one cited in the article above.

James Hayes, London,