1. How can the WMD operated by Britain be used should the United States withdraw its support or act preventively?
All British nuclear warheads are manufactured and maintained in the UK. The UK has previously manufactured all classes of nuclear weapons currently in service during the time the US was embargoing nuclear technology (see the tests at Christmas Island for details - these were up to and including thermonuclear weapons with a yield in the Megatonne range, which are no longer deployed). The capabilities required may not currently exist in the UK, but the knowledge required for them and the industrial base to generate them does exist. The rest is a matter of money and a small amount of time - time we are guaranteed to have because of the shelf life of the existing weapons and stocks of special nuclear material.

2. Were any reassurances required by the Bush Administration before it renewed the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement in 2004 concerning the direction of British defence and civil nuclear policy?
Funnily enough, this is exactly the sort of thing that is kept secret. In any case, this would be the subject of ongoing discussions rather than a single occasion.

3. How near to production is the US-assisted nuclear weapon the Conservative government tested and developed after Trident and cancelled in October 1993?
I'm not aware of any such weapon, nor does the timetable seem plausible. Trident was just in the process of entering production at this time, and the warhead/bus system had been fully tested to go with the new missiles. This may be referring to a putative enhancement to Trident, but almost certainly does not refer to an entire new system. In any case, given the changed strategic environment with the end of the cold war and the CTBT this work is liable to be of very little use/relevance.

4. How much of the spending at Aldermaston is on equipment and services from US companies?
How much of the spending at Oak Ridge is on equipment and service from UK companies? The numbers are likely to be surprisingly similar due to the nature of the relationship between the two countries and the level of exchange of data/special nuclear material.

The UK does not, and never has had fully independent nuclear capability.
On that basis (and following their arguament that the UK did not have an independent deterrent during the time the McMahon act was in operation) neither has the US. I don't see him claiming that because the US has not got an independent nuclear capability it should give up all it's nuclear weapons (probably because of the number of people who would think him mad).

This course of action will not supply Britain with a weapon it could use if it ever stood alone as in 1940.
1) The warheads are of entirely British manufacture for this very reason. HMG is almost ridiculously paranoid about this sort of thing - they just never admit to it.
2) The missiles have a substantial maintenence life, and in the nature of such things will still be reasonably reliable after several times the maintenence life. Furthermore the UK has the full design details for multiple older nuclear warhead designs and the ability to manufacture them into deliverable freefall weapons in short order. The Tornado was also designed from the start as a nuclear strike aircraft, and while the role has been removed it is still capable with minimal modification.

With greater freedom of action to work with the US , the EU and other partners, the UK should renew the multilateral disarmament agenda which achieved so much in the 1980s and 1990s.
Like doc said, this one's pretty laughable. The net effect of arms control has been to make the nuclear balance less stable, and in any case the arms control has followed political developments rather than led them.
Romanes Eunt Domus