I understand stamping your foot and shouting keeps enemies at bay too.

Or at least joining hands and singing kumbaya

Where to start with this one.
Although the author's heart is in the right place - and who can argue with nuclear disarmament - there are major problems with the article.

I have no intention of refighting the Iraq invasion but the author should at least be aware that the statistics he quotes "caused casualties estimated to be as high as one million and converted over four million of its citizens into displaced persons".. are inherently ludicrous. There is an academic study that tries to claim 600,000 deaths from gunshot wounds over several years of the occupation but its been debunked and basically ignored. A high end guess is maybe 70,000 deaths for both the invasion and the occupation, which is bad enough for any propoganda purposes of course, but the author should show some restraint.

Causes of World War I. There are libraries of books on the causes of that war which they are still debating today. The author's statement on this issue is an opinion, not an analysis.

Terrorist use of nuclear weapons. This was certainly flagged as a danger two decades or so ago when the Soviet Union fell apart, and the government stopped paying its military. But it didn't happen. Terrorists hijacked planes using box cutters instead. So how come it didn't happen?

My own thoughts, for what they are worth, is that even a hijacked nuclear bomb is probably beyond the skill level of your average terrorist.. its not a matter of wondering what that button on the console does.. Very likely they would have had to kidnap someone who actually knew had to arm the device and bypass the safety mechanisms that even a russian device would have. Same would apply to stealing the parts and DIYing. Its in a completely different league to fertiliser and petrol bombs, even if you can get the instructions on the internet.

Anyway, any other thoughts on why nuclear bombs have yet to be used by terrorists?/

It's is indeed passing strange that the author of this article (with whom I have some sympathy) forgot to mention the looming nuclear attack on Iran which Israel has promised us in the next couple of months.

It's not Britain and its four nuclear subs we have to worry about. It's Israel and its bigger brother, the U.S., both of which would use nukes at the drop of a hat if they thought it would advantage them.

"Nah, they wouldn't do that," I hear you say as your indoctrination kicks in. "They are the good guys!"

Well think again. America has already used atomic weapons and almost used them during the Cuba crisis. They now have a whole range of specialty nukes they'd like to test. I'm surprised that haven't used them on Afghanistan to force the Taliban to surrender!

The chance of the U.S. and its warmongering Allies giving up nukes is nil. That would require intelligence and a desire for peace, neither of which has much currency.

The threat of nuclear war is hanging over all our heads. Nutty Yahoo (Netanyahu) will decide the fate of the world and take it to Rapture.

I'm still yet to see the revisionism to convince me that there are not millions more people alive today, in both Japan and Allied nations, thanks to the decision made by President Truman.

Perhaps the real and burning question is 'Can Mankind be trusted'? It would appear not. Deception, ingenuity and competitiveness seem to be wired into our genes, with only the slender thread of conscience or moral courage restraining an innate barbarous nature.

Almost anyone is capable of killing, given the 'right' circumstances, and the only effective solution would be to avert the incidence of those circumstances. How then to achieve a benevolent world?

There are many past and present examples of what 'brainwashing' can achieve, for good or ill, and perhaps the solution to our folly lies in the development of an appropriate brainwashing mechanism for the whole of humanity. North Korea demonstrates what one form can achieve, why not a 'nurturing' brainwashing mechanism? Surely better than nuclear holocaust?

Another alternative may be an indestructible 'Robocop' on every corner, with capacity to vaporise any and all transgressors, and a sky full of spy-drones keeping an ever watchful eye on all human endeavour - Big Brother in spades.

Could the U.K. or U.S. be the source of a new Messiah of virtuous vision? Or, the UN? One could only hope. The disbanding of the U.K.'s nuclear fleet is most unlikely to be of any consequence whatsoever.

It would appear that humankind may only be guided to stable and continuous virtue by encouragement and support, and not by fear and repression, by development such that all may have equal opportunity and quality of life, and whereby all may come to share a common moral compass. Until then, it would appear that nukes and terrorism will continue to plague any visions of Utopia.

>>How Britain could become the most admired of nations>>

Admired by who?

Maybe readers of the Guardian for two minutes.

>>In the years of the Cold War false alarms brought the world to within minutes of a Armageddon;

now it is the proliferation of nuclear weapons in developing nations which presents the danger of such indiscriminate destroyers falling into the wrong hands;>>

True but it is very unlikely that British bombs will fall into the wrong hands. More likely Pakistani or Iranian ones.

>>the world awaits a high-profile disarmament to set the dominos falling such that all stockpiles (especially insecure stockpiles) are no more.>>

Flapdoodle.

Do you seriously think Iran's mullahs are going to give up on nukes because the Brits decommission theirs?

Once the Iranians have their bomb do honestly believe anything Britain does can stop the Saudis and, later, the Turks, from acquiring nukes?

You probably do not agree with bombing Iran's nuclear weapons facilities to smithereens but it would be more effective than anything Britain could do. On present course by 2016 Iran will most likely already be a nuclear state.

I'm afraid this article is pure wishful thinking.