NEITHER Labour nor the Conservatives have committed to maintaining UK defence expenditure at current levels if they win the General Election.

They have ducked the question because they know the UK cannot afford to meet its Nato commitment to spend at least two per cent of GDP on defence.

Britain could have superbly equipped conventional forces if it takes the brave decision not to replace the Royal Navy's hideously expensive Trident submarine force.

But our politicians do not want to give up the pretence of an independent nuclear deterrent because they are labouring under the misapprehension that having the ability to incinerate a large part of Russia somehow makes the UK a world power.

Yesterday the shadow chancellor Ed Balls suggested a future Labour government might be prepared to reduce the Trident fleet from the present four boats to three.

This, he said, would save money while still providing a continuous at-sea nuclear capability.

Labour's plan is the worst of all political fudges. It proposes making three boats do the work of four, while only saving a trivial amount of money.

When the LidDems suggested halving the Trident fleet a couple of years ago MoD officials did the math and concluded a part-time deterrent would only save £50m a year. That would buy the RAF one new Eurofighter Typhoon jet every four years.

Taking the brave decision to scrap the Trident replacement would save the MoD at least £20bn.

That is the kind of cash injection the UK's conventional defences need if Britain is to remain a credible force on the world stage.

Unfortunately, neither Labour nor the Tories are prepared to countenance such an idea. Instead, they will take the axe to our non-nuclear Armed Forces and persist with a hugely expensive Cold War weapons system that must never be used.