Expect a last minute frightener on June 7th. A warning that a vote for Labour will leave us defenceless, because if Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM he would never use our nuclear deterrent.

The nuclear debate is an attempt to avoid the real issues over which the election should be fought by clouding it with an entirely unrealistic proposition. Corbyn should have said, "If there is no other solution I will press the button." In saying so, his decision would have been no different from any other British PM. In reality, nobody is going to launch a nuclear missile.

To prove this point we must first ask, "Who threatens us with a nuclear attack?" However unlikely it is, let's consider the possibility of a threat from every one of the world's other eight nuclear powers.

Russia. She has the largest nuclear stock pile in the world (7,000). A conflict over attempts to influence territories that were once part of the Soviet Union is possible. But this would be a world conflict and, if it became nuclear, our role would be insignificant. Of all the nuclear powers, we have the smallest territory. It would take at the most ten nuclear missiles to obliterate us. The most likely scenario is that the British Government would keep its head down in the hope we would remain unnoticed, with the remote possibility that our planet would remain habitable after a nuclear holocaust.

USA. 6,780 nuclear weapons. We own Trident but its missiles are from the USA. The American National Security Agency has built in software that would allow it to override UK control.

France is Europe's only other European nuclear power. It is difficult to imagine a situation that could lead to a military conflict, let alone a nuclear war.

China. Owns a few more nuclear weapons than us, but they offer no nuclear threat to any European power. Which is just as well. A pre-emptive strike against China would be disastrous. Their territory is so vast that a nuclear attack could leave them with the resources to retaliate. Within a few hours the 242,495 km that contains our islands would be uninhabitable.

India and Pakistan. Both have declared they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. All their military resources are deployed for a war between them. No other nation is involved. To take sides and use nuclear weapons against either nation would be unforgivable.

Israel. Has nuclear weapons to use against its non-nuclear Arab neighbours. They offer no threat to us.

North Korea. The only case still quoted to justify us retaining the deterrent. All the world powers are pledged to compel its half mad leader, Kim Jong-un, to give up nuclear weapons. But their plans do not include the use of a nuclear missile. The effect of its fall-out on South Korea is a major factor. We should offer all those working for a solution all our support; but a UK nuclear strike would not be welcome by anyone working on this problem.

ISIS held territory. Their existence gives them territory from which they can plan atrocities. Gaining nuclear weapons and the facilities to deliver them is unlikely, but the possibility cannot be overlooked. But there is no precision nuclear missile, and most of those living in ISIS held areas are innocent civilians.

There is only one solution: troops on the ground with adequate air support. We have well-trained and dedicated armed services, and these we can offer to the free world without the risk of nuclear obliteration.