Despite the US-led invasion of Afghanistan starting back in October 2001, around 9,000 British soldiers still remain stationed in the country to this day, with a remit of training up local military forces to take over security by the end of 2014.

The dangers involved are now on clear display in the escalating crisis in North Korea as the United States seeks to strike a delicate balance between deterring an unknown adversary and reassuring a nervous ally. What's more, the drama plays out in full view of an international audience, some of whom are watching for clues about the utility of nuclear weapons in the 21st Century.

US President Barack Obama has told North Korea to end its "belligerent" attitude amid suggestions the secretive regime has developed the capability to...

North Korea is not as irrationally troublesome as some sections of the media would lead you to believe. It's often entirely pragmatic and if anything is consistently attention-seeking rather than reckless and erratic.

It's quiz time. Who said this? "We need our nuclear deterrent as much today as we did when a previous British government embarked on it over six decades ago ... The nuclear threat has not gone away."

David Cameron's claim that the UK needs nuclear weapons to defend itself from North Korea has been dismissed as "absurd" by a former Conservative defe...

What are nuclear weapons? Cold War relics? Necessary evils? Indiscriminate bombs? The ultimate insurance policy? The answer of course depends on your personal outlook. But here's another way of putting it: for the UK, nuclear weapons are over £100billion of taxpayers' money.

Those of us who support disarmament long for a day when politicians end the perpetual arms race and focus on issues closer to home. Trident itself is part of a political mindset that says Britain should be playing an aggressive and interventionist role abroad.

Economic sanctions incur significant economic losses for all parties. Provided they are successful, they nevertheless represent the least bad way forward in relation to Iran. And to give diplomacy a real chance of success, they have to be efficient and effective.

North Korea's underground nuclear test this week -- its third -- was a salutary reminder that all is not well in a region already facing a host of uncertainties.

Many people from across the political spectrum are opening their minds to a reconsideration of Britain's strategic and security needs.

To keep on producing weapons-grade uranium Aldermaston is clearly going to need some major investment. At a time of austerity, when families are relying on foodbanks and benefits are being cut, can we really justify adding to the already astronomical nuclear weapons bill?

A former Labour defence minister has suggested threatening to drop a neutron bomb on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in order to crack down on terrori...

Britain is considering stationing warplanes in the Persian Gulf as the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme continues amid rising tensio...

In short, does he choose the chance of victory but risk his party, or privately concede the result in order to guarantee the unity of his base. It is a difficult judgement call that only he can make - but too many more half-measures and he may end up with the worst of both options, and the comforts of neither.

Leon Trotsky, not someone I usually quote, once said that people may not be interested in politics but politics is often interested in them. British people may be wary of foreign interventions but foreign crises can profoundly affect domestic politics. The suffering that we see every day in Syria won't go away and will have to be addressed, sooner rather than later.

If the government says there is no money for health, for education, for jobs, that we must cut back spending and embrace austerity, then why is it wasting money on nuclear weapons?