Is it a waste of billions of pounds improving nuclear capebilities when it is ALMOST certain that the weapons would not ever be used? And if the weapons are used the whole world is likely to be fucked anyway.

How can we preach to other nations about similar issues when we are investing heavily in these types of weapons ourselves?

Why don't we say that we are upgrading, but don't actually do it, and spend the money elsewhere were it is needed. All those other nasty countries with nuclear capabilities won't dare attack us, and we will be secure for another couple of generations. Sorted.

It's completely crazy. 20 billion would completely re kit the entire armed forces. We have soldiers dying TODAY because of poor kit, it has always been thus mind you; 25 years ago my boots fell to bits in the Falklands because they were made from crap and I had to resupply from a dead Argie.

The hairy arsed Russians will not come over the hill waving scuds and the Chinese will conquer us far more subtley through economics rather than military might.

Our enemy is terrorism. Any nuclear strike will not be from a missile it will come from a container on a ship or brought into the UK in kit form and assembled here. Anyone see the Fourth Protocol? change the Russian for an AQ operative and its perfectly achieveable from their perspective. There is loads of nuclear material missing in Russia and there are plenty of Islamic militants in Chechnya. Thats the threat and no amount of new submarines will stop it. Give the money to SIS and the convential forces.

Trident bombers? It's a missile not a bomber.

The main cost is actually in the submarines that launch the things rather than the missile itself. The trouble is as far as I can see it that by relying on US technology we hand over control of our 'deterrant' to the Whitehouse. These things fly with US technology and US satellite guidence. Without either they are entirely useless.

I would certainly nuke Afghanistan. Lets see the Mujahadeen fight a nuclear missile up their arses. Mind you, you'd only rearrange the rocks.

But it's an effective deterrent against.... erm...erm....

[Thinks]

I know! It's to prevent us being attacked by Western Samoa. The effectiveness of this strategy is shown by the fact that since we have had Polaris and then Trident, Western Samoa has made no threatening moves towards the UK except on the Rugby Field. Who knows what they would have done had we not held a Nuclear Deterrent?

The truth of the matter is that if we don't spend lots of money on Trident II, various US Defence manufacturers with whine at Dubya and all of a sudden the special relationship ain't so special. We may build the subs ourselves, but the missile technology will be all American, as it has been since we abandoned our own home-grown missile programmes in the late 50s/early 60s.

Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Private Baldrick: But, this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Captain Blackadder: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

Private Baldrick: What was that, sir?

Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.

Private Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing then.

Absolutely. I spent a couple of weeks guarding Greenham Common in the early eighties, we thought the wimmin there were crackers. It turns out they were well ahead of their time although probably wrong at that particular time.

Precisely. There may be numerous reasons why we're keeping our nukes, but deterrent is hard to justify as one of them. Partly it's keeping the Americans happy by buying their new missile system, partly it's so that we can continue to think that we're at the top table - ie "We're important, we've got Nuclear Weapons".

Anyone ever see the episode of Yes Prime Minister where Hacker is persuaded to cancel Trident and spend it on conventional weapons - only for Humphrey to reverse it by pointing out that then he won't get to have his picture taken with the President?

If all we need is a deterrent then why can't we keep the old system operational - we will never actually use the warheads in anger. Those that we are trying to deter could not be sure that the system wasn't operational.

It has to be remembered from the great 'Yes Prime Minister' the deterrent is not required against China or Russia since they could simply wipe us of the face of the earth. The real target of the deterrent is of course ......the French.

Which crews are these? I've never heard a submariner call it a bomber. A ship, a sub, a tube, a prison certainly but never a bomber.

Well I'm going to disagree with the majority here and say that we do need Trident!!!!

A bit like the weather....who can say who our friend or foe is going to be in 10, 20, 30 years time!!!!

The reason we haven't had a WWIII was down to one simple fact....Nuclear Weapons!!!!

Love them or hate them....they bring a sort of stability to the world!!!!

I'm afraid from a Chinese point of view we've got the capability of a gnat biting a buffalo. We overrate our own importance. They also have a great disdain for the USA and their military capability, but above all for their posturing. Their attitude is that if the Americans with all their might and rhetoric can't even keep the lid on a ragtag bunch of Arabs and Tribesmen, when they're up against a meaningful fighting force, which they haven't been since 1945, they'll shit it.

And they're right.

China has a standing army of 300 million.

I would like to see the money spent on conventional forces...but it wouldn't be would it...it would disappear into the black hole and be used to bankroll more outreach workers and the like.