The post-Cold War case for the Trident nuclear missile was never an easy sell in the UK. With no Soviet Union, why continue spending billions of pounds on a nuclear deterrent when it is not clear exactly what was being deterred? Would that money not be better spent on the more immediate needs of the population and put to rest Britain’s nostalgia as a global power, quietly accepting its new lot in the world as a middling power? While it is true that none of the other eight nuclear armed states in the world represent a current threat to the UK, this cannot be guaranteed. Some have the capacity, but no likely intention, to threaten the UK. Others, such as North Korea, may have malign intentions but lack the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons over the great distance between them and Britain. On the other hand, we have already seen that many other countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons can gain them if they are sufficiently committed to it, current non-proliferation treaties notwithstanding — even Pakistan, India and North Korea managed it. North Korea also seems willing to sell its expertise to any takers, meaning that it will not be necessary for countries to be sponsored by the West or by China or Russia to gain such weapons. Indeed, in an interview with The Guardian newspaper in May 2009, International Atomic Energy Agency chiefMohamed ElBaradei predicted a surge in the number of “virtual nuclear weapons states” that could produce plutonium or highly enriched uranium and know how to make warheads. While they would probably stop short of assembling a weapon, thus remaining technically compliant with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, they could be within a couple of months of deploying and using a nuclear bomb. In a world where international norms are breaking down, the UK fortunately retains a competent nuclear deterrent. Dr. Azeem Ibrahim As supporters of Trident have long argued, we now really do live in an uncertain and unpredictable world, with shifting geopolitical sands and technological advancements. With climate change, expected resource shortages, population explosions in many countries, and the socio-economic upheaval promised by rapid automation, imperatives for conflict and war will be proliferating quickly over the coming century. What if some of the countries who take the path of war, either by choice or by necessity, were among the “virtual nuclear power states” predicted by ElBaradei? How would that change the calculus of any conflict? In such a plausible scenario would having the ultimate insurance policy not be fully justified? The incentives for smaller powers to reach toward nuclear defensive capabilities will be irresistible, especially as they will have learned from the lessons of the past and the present. Countries that abandoned their nuclear weapons programs, such as Libya, lie in ruins. Countries that pushed ahead with their programs despite global opposition, such as North Korea, are still standing. And countries such as Ukraine, which voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons, are now being carved up by their bigger, nuclear neighbors. Ukraine inherited a significant Soviet stockpile of nuclear weapons when the Cold War ended, making it the third biggest nuclear power in the world. It agreed to return them to Russia under the explicit understanding that its territorial integrity would be assured. History, as we now know, developed differently. In a world where international norms are breaking down, where borders in Europe are once again disputed, and where non-proliferation treaties seem more feeble than ever, the UK fortunately retains a competent nuclear deterrent, which means that at the very least no aggressor would dare put troops on the British mainland. Geopolitics is not about hoping for the best. It is about preparing for the worst. Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is the Director of Special Initiatives at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington D.C. and author of “The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s Genocide” (Hurst, 2017). Twitter: @AzeemIbrahim Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view