Trident Replacement

An interesting discussion in the week about the point of replacing the British nuclear deterrent. Some ex-service chiefs have come out and said the weapon of last resort, would in fact never be used as a last resort so what is the point in spending the money to replace it? Also the fact that we could never truly use it independently and we would only do so with the combined action of America.

The best argument I heard for keeping it was that the money saved is in fact a small percentage of the defence budget over the many years the investment would be made (it gets quoted at about £18bn). Hence the money saved would unlikely be reinvested into more urgent forms of defence by the government of the day. The other argument are weaker, and are based around "seats at the high table" - which in today's world is nonsense.

I think there is a case for scaling down, 4 submarines all of which do not have any other role other than to sit in dock and wait out at sea is probably too much. Why not 4 submarines, two fitted for the role, and two fitted with something we would more likely use like a cruise missle boat - the extra two could be converted back in a world of a higher nuclear threat.