Nick Clegg today became the first major party leader to call for the scrapping of Trident - Britain's submarine based nuclear missile system. He rightly identified the fact that such weaponry is outdated and no longer meets our defence needs; however it is a shame that Clegg did not go so far as to say that Britain should ditch its nuclear weapons altogether.

The LibDem leader simply said that Trident should not be replace 'like for like', implying that he favours some other, more cost effective nuclear weapons system. It's hard to tell exactly what this would be, Britain gave up it's airborne nuclear deterrent decades ago with the decommissioning of the Vulcan bomber and I can't see such a system being resurrected. Exactly what does Clegg suggest we replace Trident with?

However the arguments about the cost of the deterrent or the type of system used are largely irrelevant when you consider the moral implications of possessing such weapons in the first place. Weapons that are never going to be used, and are in fact utterly useless in terms of Britain's place in the world today and the threats it faces. Furthermore, our possession of nuclear weapons and our to determination to upgrade them totally undermines our position when attempting to lecture countries like Iran and North Korea about their own nuclear ambitions.

With the Conservatives promising a strategic defence review should they take office after the next election, it seems likely that even they will be forced to make difficult choices about Britain's defence expenditure and our nuclear deterrent. The fact that they have promised such a review after an election allows them to conveniently dodge pre-election questions on defence expenditure and shows that once again they are unable to commit to making tough decisions. With polls often showing real public support for nuclear disarmament, perhaps Labour is missing a trick here by not bringing this debate to the fore and creating a real dividing line between ourselves and the opposition.