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.
Disarming could not only provide political leadership to the rest of the nuclear-armed states, but would be a practical guide for how to do it, a blueprint for the rest of the world drafted by our experts and politicians.
A concerted march against Jeremy Corbyn's candidacy for leader of Labour is in full stride across the political spectrum
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.
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.
Moving forward, we need to recognise the important role our nuclear deterrent plays internationally. Despite the global security environment having changed markedly since 1940, to abandon our deterrent now would only serve to undermine our own security, the security of our allies and that of liberal democracy globally.
For governments seeking to strengthen their own agendas it can help to have a minimally informed or, at least, somewhat apathetic electorate. And so important political decisions are often veiled in a cloak of terminology that alienates voters - especially young voters.
The reality is that the UK cannot rely on weapons that were designed for a different world and political context to fight these modern day security threats.
Labour are "open" to cheaper alternatives for the Trident nuclear deterrent but have stopped short of committing to ditch
Nuclear weapons may be filthy, but they are a comparatively clean way of deterring people from using biological and chemical weapons which are worse.