Nuclear weapon states will soon see that it is unrealistic to continue to keep such horrific, indiscriminate, expensive weapons - costing the U.K. a mere £100,000,000,000 annually - money that could be better spent elsewhere. In this new era where conflict is taking on a new guise, where conflict comes more and more in the form of terrorism and cyber threats; archaic weapons like this one are not designed to tackle modern-day challenges.
For years, many people, myself included, have argued that nuclear weapons are so destructive, cruel and immoral that they should actually be made illegal. We live in a world that had the sense to ban landmines - an indiscriminate weapon that leaves people without limbs. This same world, until now, has not had the sense to ban a weapon that could destroy millions of lives, leave generations affected, and contribute even more damage to the world around us. But we can change this.
On 7 July something historic happened. A Treaty banning the stockpiling and development of nuclear weapons was adopted by 122 governments at the UN in New York. That is 122 different countries that agree that nuclear weapons are unsafe and unnecessary in the world we live in.
Fear is the main thing that has made towns, states or regions vote against welcoming people into their countries, perhaps because they look, act and think differently to them. The surprising thing is that many of these people have had little interaction with immigrants in their lifetime.
The fact that the future president of the United States, Donald Trump, took the unprecedented decision NOT to ask Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, Frank Klotz, and his deputy, Madelyn Creedon, to stay on until he finds their replacement is disturbing, to say the least.
Achieving a ban on nuclear weapon is not as hard as it sounds, as I've outlaid before; making nuclear weapons illegal would be the best start to this. This would make it illegal for any country to attain nuclear weapons by the buying, selling or transfer of them, with economic sanctions (or a harshening of sanctions) if a country goes against this.
I agree fully with Ban Ki Moon's message; there are many paths to disarmament but what we must all agree on is to do something, the world cannot afford another round of inaction. We need to work to eliminate all nuclear weapons and now is the time to do it; our very survival depends on it.
Trident has not stopped terrorism and it never will. Investing in our police forces, in early detection in tracking people who declare terrorist intents on social media is what will help resolve these threats.
At the moment we have been told that we need these weapons and that's all, no discussion, no options, no consideration of what we do if there is a proliferation of states increasing their nuclear capabilities, no discussion of the harm they could cause in accidents and no alternative opinions taken seriously.
A recent argument made by nuclear weapons supporters has been that the increase of terrorism means we need nuclear weapons. Personally I believe the opposite is true - an increase in acts of terrorism is precisely why nuclear weapons are adding to insecurity: you cannot use a 'deterrent' against an ideology that does not care who it destroys - including its own followers.
Why are we planning on spending £100 billion to renew a weapon system floating around in submarines off the coast of Scotland when it could completely destroy us and our climate, leaving radiation for years to come? If Britain chooses to renew Trident in 2016, this is ultimately the choice we will make.
12/05/2014 18:18 BST
SUBSCRIBE AND FOLLOW
Get top stories and blog posts emailed to me each day. Newsletters may offer personalized content or advertisements.