Trident?

[Matblack]

Does the UK need a nuclear deterent?

Right now the argument the government is using to justify the keep of Trident is this

Mr Blair said although the Cold War had ended the UK needed nuclear weapons as no-one could be sure another nuclear threat would not emerge in the future.

He also said "it is not utterly fanciful" to "imagine states sponsoring nuclear terrorism from their soil".

We are all pretty aware that any country developing a nuclear arsenal and delivery system would feel the wrath of the USA before it produces anything which could get a few hundred miles off its territory (the producers not the USA).

So we have to assume that what we are being told is that we need to be able to react to locally delivered terrorism (suicide bombs) by unleashing nuclear hell on a country which we deem to have 'sponsored' the terrorists. Given our track record on which country is doing what (so Sadam has nukes?) can we justify having this capability, let alone spending £10-25Bn on a new version?

Your ideas are welcome

MB