Here you can suggest a new poll to be added

[Ad Min]

Please reply with the question you would like to be included.

[Philip Gilligan]

I am extremely concerned that you have included the question 'Can Britain rely on a friendly Superpower to provide any necessary nuclear deterrent?'.

This implies that a so called 'nuclear deterrent' is 'necessary'. This is not the way to free the world from the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

Philip

[Ad Min]

Hi Philip

The large majority in the country against replacing Trident is a co-alition. Towards one end are those opposed to nuclear weapons and perhaps right at that end are those who believe these are immoral and illegal. Those opposed include those believing nukes are outmoded, pose a risk to safety or security or too expensive. At the other end are those who actually want to retain nukes but don't want Trident replaced.

Do we actually have an independent deterrent, independent launch command or even an independent foreign policy (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran ...)? The US can’t need British nuclear capacity for any deterrent value or strike power but may like us having nukes to give them credibility for retaining theirs and for combined action if they use them, or even just because they make money out of us. The question isn’t about whether retaining our nukes provokes proliferation or hinders disarmament or makes the world less safe (that’s question 2). If nukes have any deterrent value, then would we still be covered if we gave them up because the US is our ally? Perhaps what we need are further polls on whether Trident is an effective deterrent, or whether it is necessary for us to have a deterrent, on the legality and morality, and whether Britain should disarm unilaterally - although surely first Trident replacement would have to be abandoned to pave the way for winding up our nukes programme. You are more than welcome to put forward some extra questions.

Cheers

Paul barasi