MPS WILL today vote on the renewal of Britain's Trident nuclear submarine programme.

David Cameron called for the snap vote as one of his last major acts before leaving office, a move considered by some designed to exploit Labour's internal divisions.

His successor Theresa May, and the Conservative party overall, is in favour of keeping the UK's nuclear deterrent, with the new Prime Minister quoted as saying: "It would be sheer madness to contemplate even for a moment giving up Britain's independent nuclear deterrent."

Loading article content

READ MORE: May to launch attack on 'misplaced idealism' ahead of Trident vote

Labour leader and vice-chair of CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) Jeremy Corbyn is a supporter of unilateral nuclear disarmament, while many of his MPs are in favour. 

The SNP and Greens are against Trident, while the Liberal Democrats favour reducing the number of missile submarines. 

Saturday saw thousands of people attend anti-Trident rallies across Scotland, as more than  30 demonstrations took place in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and elsewhere.

READ MORE: Thousands take to streets as Scotland voices its opposition to "ghastly" Trident weapons

Those in favour argue the below as reasons to renew

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent to any aggressor, ensuring peace through the threat of destruction.

Stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, though desirable, is impossible. Scrapping our own deterrent when hostile states are striving to develop their own is a mistake.

READ MORE: Labour leadership contest: Owen Smith says he will back renewal of Trident

Possession of nuclear weapons gives the United Kingdom power on the world stage. 

Those against argue the below as reasons to not renew. 

Nuclear weapons are immoral and ultimately pointless. If they are ever used, it will likely be to kill millions of people. 

Maintaining the deterrent is far too expensive. The MOD say it will cost £23.4bn to procure a like-for-like replacement, but CND say over the lifespan of the system that figure will be £100bn. In a time of austerity that money could be spent on other things.

The money could alternatively be spent on conventional warfare. The Cold War is long over, while conflicts over the past two decades show British forces are most likely to be engaged in asymmetric warfare where nuclear weapons are irrelevant.

The argument that nukes give Britain diplomatic clout is foolish. Australia, Canada and Germany have no nuclear deterrent and exert much global influence. 

Tell us what you think below.