So why isn't Trident on the strategic defence review?

[TheBigotBasher]

Liam Fox said the Government should not be "affectionate" about areas of defence expenditure, but on Trident, the Conservatives and Neo Con Labour are not only affectionate they want to mate with it.

Is Trident really worth the money?

[non sociopath skin]

1. Is it hell.

Of course, it may come in handy if the Soviet Union makes a comeback. Or Napoleonic France.

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. Ah the Bonapartist threat!

Don't forget the Legitimists and Orleanists either skin.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. Worth the money? Yes to protect us against the Americans

I jest.

But anyhow the USA seems to have been the most inclined to use nuclear weapons. Of course they famously did in 1945.

The US military strongly considered using them in Korea and Indo-China, and expected them to be deployed in an expected full-scale war against the Soviet Union scheduled for 1952-54 (but the unexpected Soviet nuclear parity meant the cancellation of this idea).

US hawks continue to talk up the prospect of a tactical nuclear strike against Iran in present times.

But going back to your original question, not having nuclear weapons doesn't seem to affect the security and stability of most European countries.

[Nihil]

4. Trident is a huge waste of money (and has been for nearly 20 years now). (n/t)

[TheBigotBasher]

5. The conspiracy theory answer is we need it for a place oon the G8.