ACROSS in the United States last month I stayed with friends who had been at an event in Florida attended by President Trump. Amidst the retinue that followed the Commander in Chief, was a powerfully-built secret service agent carrying a brown leather bag. That, it transpired, contained the codes needed to be immediately accessible for the President’s finger to press the nuclear button. Despite its critical importance for all humanity the guard still found time to pose with guests eager for a selfie, as his leader ambled about glad-handing. All this with a backdrop of the growing crisis in Korea.

I’ve told that tale to many since my return and it’s been met with a mixture of fear and nervous tittering. Even those who support the retention of the Trident missile system are anxious about the man now ensconced in the White House. His finger on the nuclear button as President fills most with dread. These are dangerous times demanding calm leadership. But it appears that Dr Strangelove and his cohorts have again entered the building.

Paradoxically, it’s the opposite for a British Prime Minister. Jeremy Corbyn’s unwillingness to commit to its use has seen frothing at the mouth from some. Never mind that for some of the hypothetical situations put to him, such as taking out the leader of Islamic State, their use appears militarily madness.

However, the UK Defence Secretary was rolled out to explain how not only would Theresa May press the button but she would be willing to do so as a first strike option. Macho May not cowardly Corbyn; such is the posturing this side of the Atlantic.

That position on first strike use was surprising. I’d always been led to believe by people like Sr Michael Fallon that the purpose of nuclear weapons was to deter not ever detonate, their retention somehow ensuring they’d never be used, this steadfastness ensuring permanent peace.

Not so it seems. Their tactical use is once again being talked about. Just how that can be without leading us to the eve of destruction is never explained. It’s a generation since the end of the Cold War and memories appear short. By its conclusion, it wasn’t a tactical use that was recognised, but a mutually assured destruction that was agreed upon.

However, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent remains a virility test for the highest political post in the land. It’s been weaponised, as the political euphemism goes, by the Tories given Labour’s divided position.

However, it’s neither independent nor a deterrent. Britain is entirely beholden to the US for the maintenance and use of the Trident missile system. Its use, first strike or otherwise, without their countenance is impossible. If the Americans use it anyway, then whatever the British did or were allowed to do would thereafter be academic as nuclear winter descended around the globe.

Its use against terrorism is as insane as the question to Mr Corbyn was inane. The US, France and the UK all possess them and others like Germany and Belgium shelter under the nuclear umbrella. It hasn’t averted terrorist atrocities. On whom would we use them? The Banlieue in Paris, suburbs of Brussels or towns in Yorkshire? Its threatened use in the Middle East is hardly a threat to organisations that sacrifice their own people and in any event, believe in martyrdom and an afterlife.

Its cost is crippling our military and society. Soldiers go to war inadequately provided for and foodbanks proliferate. A fairer world, not nuclear weapons. is the road to peace.

So, there has been shameless posturing on all sides. What about the moral argument that any weapon that would obliterate humanity is simply indefensible?