On Monday, MPs will be asked to vote on the renewal of what the UK Government describes as "credible" nuclear weapons, on a motion asserting that the renewal of UK nuclear capability will safeguard us against the most extreme threats we face, as -- so it says -- it has done for the past 60 years.

Confusingly, the motion concludes with a mealy-mouthed statement on the desirability of multilateral nuclear disarmament. Surely it is not really "credible" to suggest that nuclear disarmament can be achieved by spending hundreds of millions of pounds on new weapons of mass destruction.

The UK Government saying these weapons have kept us safe for 60 years should give us pause for thought. The UK would not have suffered by not being a nuclear power during that time. And in no other military sphere would we be seriously suggesting the security solutions we favoured six decades ago should dictate our defence procurement.

The threats we will face now and in future are diverse. We all despair at the terrible events in Nice. There is undeniably a serious threat from Daesh and extremist groups. But the UK or France having nuclear weapons is no deterrent whatsoever in the face of terrible attacks like this.

The movement of people across the world is a significant issue. In future, war, famine, and climate change, will cause more people to travel with the aim of survival. They are not to be blamed for this, but it represents a global challenge we need to prepare for. This will not be helped by us possessing nuclear weapons, which will make no difference to people already fleeing for their lives from some of the most hostile places on the planet.

A third element we must give a higher priority to is the influence of technology, with cyber security ripe to become the key plank of strategic defence planning. For all the opportunities that technology brings us, it also brings many threats. We have already seen banking and commercial organisations struggle to deal with hacking and data breaches. Government and international organisations must step up and acknowledge this growing level of risk.

However, no matter how well we develop our cyber security, it is obvious that directing a nuclear missile at this problem would be futile.

We also need to consider how other nations respond to our nuclear submarines, which are designed to be a "continuous at-sea deterrent". They are billed as having the ability to remain undetectable at sea.

But are they really undetectable. And will they be, in the future?

The UK has finally caved in to pressure to purchase the long-needed maritime patrol aircraft which allow us to patrol our territorial waters. It's safe to assume that other countries are equally keen to see what our subs are doing.

Other countries also have increasing undersea capability. The development of unmanned undersea drones to detect submarine presence and activity make it very difficult to agree with the UK Government's assertion that our nuclear submarines are not, and will not be, detectable.

This may seem like science fiction, but, so was being able to buy aerial drones in Argos 10 years ago. Developments are many and significant, with many concepts emerging: Thousands of small, cheap drones "swarming" to detect submarine presence; or giant drones which can survey wide areas and relay their findings in real time without surfacing, are moving into production - and while the oceans may be vast, the collision in 2009 between UK and French nuclear subs shows that they tend to use the same parts of it.

It is short-sighted at best, and negligent at worst for the UK Government not to acknowledge this in their defence planning when it comes to nuclear capability: My SNP colleagues and I have been met with stony silence when we have asked what contingencies the MoD is making to ensure that this £205bn project isn't obsolete in 40 years.

A government which is willing to spend such a high proportion of the defence budget on one project should be happy to answer questions, and be transparent about its thinking. This one absolutely is not.

This may be because the UK Government has never seen Trident as simply a weapon. It is a symbol of power, projected across the globe. A hangover from bygone days of influence and clout.

Aside from all the military arguments, it is also surely a colossal waste of money to be spending over £205bn on the next generation of Trident submarines.

Brexit has yet to make its full impact on our economy, but the financial consequences of the vote are already being felt and there will be significant cuts which will affect every one of us. To spend so much money on something so utterly useless at a time of austerity is as immoral as nuclear weapons themselves.

I know the numbers are stacked against those like me who don't support nuclear weapons, but I wholeheartedly hope that MPs really think about this and vote with their heads and their hearts on a Monday, against a new generation of nuclear weapons on the Clyde.

Comment by Kirsten Oswald. Kirsten is the SNP's spokesperson on Armed Forces and veterans and is MP for East Renfrewshire.