There is a TERRIBLE logic to a government possessing nuclear capability, just as there is to an individual possessing a knife or a gun in some areas of our large cities:

It serves as a deterrent against attack by others with the same capability (would America have dared nuke Japan in 1945 if Japan had also disposed over a nuclear weapon?); it gives you (potential, if not actual) power and influence over anyone who doesn't have the same capability; it earns you the "respect" (i.e. the fear) of others; it makes you one of the "big boys" with all the perks that go with it.

It is a puerile logic, rooted in mankind's animal nature and behaviour - and remains so, even when our  democratically elected, "right honourable" politicians choose to follow it - revealing how immature (no matter how clever and articulate) and unsuitable for high office they really are.

It is a terrifying reality to face up to, but the world IS, in fact, on the road of nuclear proliferation, and heading towards nuclear catastrophe(s) , which sooner or later are bound to occur (as if global warming and the "Sustainability Problem" were not enough of a threat !); and it is Britain and the other nuclear states who are LEADING the way.

Our government cannot CREDIBLY demand from any other government (Iran, Pakistan, India etc.) that it forsake nuclear weapons, while at the same time insisting on retaining its own. The hypocrisy, SURELY, is obvious?! All the "rational" arguments used to justify our own government's possession of nuclear weapons can (and are) used to justify their acquisition by other governments. Thus making proliferation inevitable.

So long as ANY national government disposes over nuclear weapons, OTHER national governments are bound to feel threatened and intimidated - and thus want their OWN nuclear weapons.

This is not an easy problem to solve, and I'm certainly not arguing for unilateral nuclear disarmament, which would simply leave Britain dependent on the good will of a FOREIGN national government (America), instead of our own, for protection against nuclear blackmail.

We have to go to the ROOT CAUSE of this problem, which, like most of our other problems, lies in the propensity of national governments to behave like unenlightened and immature individuals within the context of a socio-economic order deeply rooted in mankind's animal nature and behaviour.

Where are the SOCIAL SCIENTISTS and ACADEMICS to back me up?!  All too scared of biting the hand that feeds them, no doubt, or as much in denial of reality as everyone else . . . .

What we HAVE to do is find ways of placing national nuclear arsenals under democratic international control. No, I am not being naive! The alternative, which we are pursuing at the moment, is nuclear proliferation and inevitable catastrophe.

I'm not thinking of the United Nations, because most of its members are not democratic, but of our democratic allies: members of the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, etc. and ideally, of course, America, although I don't expect them to show the necessary degree of enlightenment just yet -  the more power you have (as an individual or national government), the more difficult it is to give it up.

NOW is the time to persuade our own government (and others) to replace the logic of the jungle, or the street (rooted in mankind's animal nature) with a wiser, more enlightened (less nationalistic) logic.

My response to Sir Malcolm Rifkind's "A case for nuclear defense": http://www.spaceship-earth.org/Letters/Editor/Rationality_and_nuclear_deterrence.html

My homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org