St Albans Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament wrote to all the candidates for the St Albans constituency asking for their views on Britain’s possession of nuclear weapons in general and the renewal of Trident in particular.

Here is how they responded:

Jack Easton – Green Party

The sense of security given by possession of substantial military forces is false.

Less well-armed states are threatened by more powerful nations and can make it a policy to protect themselves with equivalent or preferably superior forces.

That “the West” has been willing to fight in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan can only serve to increase the anxiety of any government or terrorist group outside that alliance.

To revive the old language, an arms race leads at best to a wary and perpetually nervous peace that depends on all parties believing not only that mutually assured destruction is unacceptable but also that this shared assumption will forever stay each of the fingers poised over the red buttons.

But one side going too far, one side believing the other has too much humanity to retaliate, one side believing that its ends justify any means, or just one slip, could let loose nuclear devastation.

The only safe route to military security is through a programme of negotiated arms reductions, with such obviously positive side effects as the diversion of military spending to civilian goods and services and greater trust between nations.

The most powerful and threatening weapons must go first. It is Green Party policy that the UK should comply with its 45 year old obligation to disarm its existing nuclear weapons.

Equally plainly the Green Party would not squander precious resources on new ones.

I have signed the CND petition calling for Trident to be scrapped without replacement.

Anne Main – Conservative Party

n an ideal and peaceful world there would of course be no need for a nuclear deterrent – this should be an aspiration of all democratic nations.

However, as the former defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox, recently said, in a ‘dangerous world, the ultimate guarantee of our security, is our nuclear deterrent’.

These words, recently put to the prime minister by Dr Fox, were a pithy reminder of the importance of our nuclear capabilities.

Currently NATO is our best protection against authoritarian aggressors, however, only the UK, France and the US are shouldering the strategic nuclear burden.

If the UK were to disarm itself, it would play a less important role in NATO, and, crucially, in the United Nations Security Council. We are one of only five permanent members, each with a nuclear deterrent.

At home, many thousands of jobs depend on our nuclear arsenal. Without Trident, these highly-skilled jobs may be subsumed into the labour market, however, protecting our country is the first and most important function of any state.

Those employed in facilitating and maintaining our nuclear deterrent are undertaking the most vital work in defending our nation.

The prime minister’s response to Dr Fox was that ‘the ultimate guarantor of Britain’s security is our independent nuclear deterrent’.

Simply by adding the word ‘independent’, Mr Cameron was making an equally incisive statement: as a NATO member, we may be under the umbrella of democratically accountable nations, however, without a nuclear deterrent, our strategic global influence would be as diminished as our ability to defend ourselves as a sovereign nation.

Kerry Pollard – Labour Party

 have been against nuclear weapons since they were first devised Nuclear weapons are an abomination and should have no place in the world, they are weapons of mutual destruction – and even worse now we have modern ‘sophisticated’ devices that can kill populations whilst maintaining the buildings and infrastructure.

The UK’s own Trident system should not be replaced.

The UK should lead by example and decommission the Trident submarine fleet and its nuclear arsenal and through the UN use its diplomatic skills and influence to persuade the wider world of the desirability of all nations who possess these weapons of mutual destruction to ‘decommission’ them.

Sandy Walkington – Liberal Democrat Party

Of course I want a nuclear-free world. It’s just how we get from here to there. We won’t do it by adopting the slavish Labour and Conservative obsession with like-for-like replacement of the Trident system.

In 2007, Liberal Democrats voted against the decision to renew Trident. We successfully pushed back any final approval of Trident replacement until 2016 precisely so there could be a proper discussion at a general election. There needs to be a vigorous debate.

The Liberal Democrats in government then initiated and drove the Trident Alternatives Review looking at the costs, feasibility and credibility of alternative systems and postures – all the questions that politicians in the other parties would prefer not asked. It is the most thorough review of its kind ever made public by a nuclear weapons state.

Our party policy is now to retain a scaled down Trident deterrent; no longer always at sea, therefore fewer submarines and warheads, but with a ‘contingency posture’ of regular unarmed exercises enabling a ‘surge’ to armed patrols if the international situation so warrants.

If elected I personally would vote for the minimum necessary to make such a posture viable and I would support any first mover initiatives leading to a genuinely nuclear-free world. I am proud that my party has refused to follow the lead of the other parties on these issues and if elected I will do all I can to pursue global nuclear disarmament.

Chris Wright – UK Independence Party 

As I’m sure you will be aware I served for 25 years in the British Army, serving almost 12 years assigned to regiments committed to the defence of North Germany in BAOR.

During that time I felt great comfort in having a small but relevant insurance policy, a mutually assured destructive deterrent as the ultimate force.

Today 25 years later I’m remain grateful for the peace that this deterrent provides.

However I am certainly against proliferation and believe we should argue through the UN to stop nation states building new systems.

Further I believe we should continuously review all the weapon systems in service and measure their effectiveness in strategic defence reviews on a periodic basis.

Currently with the ongoing conflicts across our world and in particular the continuing headache we appear to have with Russia my views are we should continue to hold nuclear weapons as a deterrent for a little while longer.

Finally whilst this isn’t the response you are after, please rest assured I and UKIP will fight for your right to peacefully campaign against nuclear weapons and Trident in particular.