trident

What a pain it must be to be in charge of the nation's finances in these challenging economic times. It's easy to imagine the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, working feverishly into the night in a frantic attempt to make the sums at least appear to add up as he prepares for tomorrow's crucial pre-budget report. But what to cut when everything is a 'tough choice' - education, the NHS, or the unthinkable alternative - raising taxes?

With great fanfare and just ahead of the Labour party conference Gordon Brown has launched his contribution to nuclear disarmament on the world – reducing the number of Trident replacement submarines from four to three.

Will champagne corks be popping in the living rooms of peace campaigners across the land tonight? Well, while it may seem churlish to criticise any positive noises being made about nuclear disarmament, the answer is a resounding no. When you look behind the spin at exactly what has been announced it's clear there's little to celebrate.

This week's news has been dominated by debate about the dire economic outlook facing the nation, and the likely severity of the cutbacks we'll need to make to pay down our now massive national debt. Ministers wring their hands about it but can't escape the reality that Britain plc needs to make cuts across the board - unless, of course, it's weapons of mass destruction that are under discussion.

In recent months it has become increasingly clear that the UK has a massive hole in its national budget and whoever comes to power after the next election is going to have to slash government spending. The debate about what should be cut has just begun, but already emerging at the top of many people's lists (certainly mine) is the planned £76bn replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

Two promising developments today...

First up Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signalled their intention to reduce the number of US and Russian nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675.

Okay, each side still have enough bombs to destroy the Earth several times over. Plus the agreement only deals with "deployed strategic" weapons, leaving out the thousands of nuclear weapons deemed "non-strategic" or "non-deployed". But coming after years of standoff the fact the two countries are back at the negotiating table is undoubtedly GOOD NEWS.

I started out with Greenpeace nearly nine years ago as a press officer – and on arrival dived straight in at the deep end by heading off to Norwich to deal with media for the trial of 28 activists (including our then Director, Peter Melchett) who were charged with pulling up genetically modified (GM) crops from an experimental field in nearby Lyng. The atmosphere was charged, as our people were potentially facing jail, and the media interest was intense.

Martin Butcher gives his reaction to the Prime Minister's recent policy speech on the future of Britain's nuclear arsenal. Martin is a consultant on international security issues and a Nato policy analyst for the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. This article first appeared in Comment is Free on 17th March.

Gordon Brown's speech today at Lancaster House exposed a fundamental contradiction at the heart of government policy on non-proliferation. The prime minister sees the importance of a world free of nuclear weapons because it is the only way of guaranteeing "that our children and grandchildren will be free from the threat of nuclear war". And yet, his government is committed to the development of a new generation of submarine-based nuclear weapons to replace Trident, thus maintaining Britain's status as a nuclear weapons state for half a century.