SWINDON'S MPs will vote to renew Britain's nuclear deterrent when the plan comes before the House of Commons.

For years the Royal Navy's Ballistic Missile submarines have been the safeguard that has protected Britain from a Cold War nuclear onslaught.

But today, when the threat seems more likely to come from terrorists, many question whether it really is a good idea to spend billions of pounds replacing them.

MPs Michael Wills and Anne Snelgrove seem to think it is. They plan to give the project their full backing when Parliament votes on the subject tomorrow.

Mrs Snelgrove, the MP for South Swindon, said: "I have been considering the issue very carefully. I have spoken to a number of constituents about the subject and I have been to briefings with the Defence Secretary Des Browne.

"Although we should show a clear commitment to arms reduction, from the time scales I am persuaded that the time is right to make this decision and I think people in Swindon will agree in us maintaining our nuclear deterrent."

Mr Wills, the MP for north Swindon, said: "In these times of growing global uncertainty and concerns over security, I think it is important that we are able to protect ourselves against potential threats, and if we are to develop a new system for delivering that deterrent then we have to start now."

But others are not so sure. Among the strongest lobbyists against the plans are the churches.

The Rev Mike Haslam, the vicar of North Swindon, and Rosemary Power, the minister of Swindon Moravian Church, feel strongly about the plans.

They said: "The renewal of Trident will cost billions of pounds.

"While our armed forces are underpaid and under-equipped, our public services continue to need to be resourced, our environment is in desperate need of protection, and there is growing agreement that environmental catastrophe is the greatest danger now facing humanity.

"To spend such billions on nuclear weapons is wrong.

"Supporters of nuclear power say that nuclear bombs will never be used, but that we must have them to protect our country from attack in an ever increasingly hostile and dangerous world.

"That might make some sense when we're talking about nations that have nuclear bombs.

"Perhaps in the past it did stop war between the Soviet Union and the USA, but with suicide bombers who don't care how much destruction they cause, and with so many bombs in the hands of frighteningly unstable nations, how can we be sure that the deterrent will work?

"We need good, fully equipped, conventional forces and excellent intelligence, not nuclear bombs."