Skipper

When Clement Attlee considered whether Britain should have nuclear weapons he referred the momentous decision to a small group outside Cabinet(sounds familiar?)and accepted its recommendations without demur. Contemporary accounts suggest he wanted these weapons as he thought that Britain needed and was entitled to the most powerful weapons available- if there was to be a balance of terror to preserve the peace, then we should own a part of it too.

The current debate about Trident is very different of course, but essentially, it seems to revolve around something akin to the knee-jerk thinking of those early postwar years. Blair and Brown want us to have the capacity to punch at the same weight as the heavy-weights, even though we are closer to being light-weights or even less. The problem is that none of this makes much sense militarily, politically let alone morally. Labour has long had a love affair with unilateralism which helped to lose it elections in the latter part of the Cold War when voters reasoned, quite rightly in my view, that divesting ourselves of nuclear weapons would not be perceived as a an act in line with the finest thoughts of Ghandi and Bertrand Russell, but as a sign of weakness that might be exploited. This strain of unreason in Labour- however worthy- tends to blind it to the unforgiving realities.

Writing in The Guardian on Thursday, Simon Jenkins delivers a withering counter-blast to the MPs about to vote for the costly renewal of this weapon system. Unilateral opponents he brushes away as traditionally unable to see clearly but he reserves his harshest criticism for those realists who believe the weapon will improve our security. He points out that:

1. Nuclear weapons did not deter aggressors from North Vietnam and Galtieri to Saddam and Milosevic. These aggressors took the view that nuclear nations were so reluctant to use such devastating weapons that they could safely operate in their shadow. If this is the case, then nuclear weapons fail to deter and are of no strategic value.

2. Recent wars have shown that lightly armed guerillas can eventually overcome superpowers armed to the teeth. Jenkins comments: 'Defence against such aggression requires diplomacy, espionage, special forces and, I have no doubt, secret ruthlessness.'

3. If nuclear weapons are not effective against modern adversaries, then surely available resources should be allocated to improving basic conventional weapons and equipment- rifles and radios which work, personnel carriers which are not vulnerable to roadside bombs, bullet-proof jackets for everyone who needs one.

4. How can we realistically persuade nations to remain non nuclear when we are so keen to upgrade our own? Is this policy not impossible to justify to nations who, quite properly, ask: 'If you are so keen to prevent proliferation, why are you improving your own?'

I understand that the vote on Trident was not necessarily final and the decision to renew might yet be rescinded at a later date. But with Brown apparently as convinced as Attlee was that such weapons are needed, and Cameron automatically taking the same line, opponents of Trident shouldn't hold their breath.