In my view, those countries with a nuclear deterrent are putting themselves more at risk from today's threats. We're not spending our money wisely. We're taking the heat off those countries without nukes. They're letting us spend the cash on Trident while they focus on what matters: tackling terrorism and stopping the growth of terrorist groups.
National security is deeply linked to the trajectories of nuclear proliferation, arms races and the success of diplomatic efforts to stem the tide. Future British governments would do well to maximise their efforts to develop a globally cooperative approach that undercuts the drivers of proliferation and reduces the salience nuclear weapons have to all states, and maximises the tendency in them all to act in a social responsible manner, with or without nuclear weapons. How they can do this effectively in the coming years must be at the top of their foreign policy agenda.
Ed Miliband has made it clear, on numerous occasions, he won't get into bed with Nicola Sturgeon. In fact some of his most passionate responses have come when dealing with this question. We now know Russell Brand has more chance of securing a cabinet position as there is clearly a very good chance he and Ed have at least shared a bed.
The efforts to question Ed Miliband's commitment to maintain a credible independent nuclear deterrent have failed to land with the electorate. But it would be a serious error to think that is down to the repeated assurances that a Labour government will follow through with full renewal of the system...
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.