Is a Britain with nuclear missile-equipped submarines a safer place to live, now and into the future? That is the crux of today's debate on replacing Trident - the weapon system that will cost an estimated £100bn over the next 30 years.
Writing for Independent Voices, Caroline Lucas MP argues: "It’s not lefty-pacifist propaganda to ask whether we should be refusing to move on from a past era of warfare.
Do we sleep safer in our beds than the non-nuclear Germans or the Japanese?"
A leader for the Guardian supports a shift in policy:
"Credible nuclear and non-nuclear alternatives to continuous at-sea Trident nuclear submarines do exist.
Most countries in the world do not have this form of defence. Many of them nevertheless remain leading global powers."
But the Financial Times quashes the non-nuclear option, also in an editorial:
Britain must retain its nuclear weapons capability. The ability to inflict “unacceptable damage” on a potential aggressor is the ultimate guarantee that Britain will not be invaded or destroyed.
The possession of nuclear weapons is critical to the status of both Britain and France."
Where do you stand?