As everyone seems to be agreed that we need a large degree of flexibility to deal with at present unforseeable threats, may I ask whether there continues to be support for the so-called Independent Nuclear Deterrent? It occurs to me that if HMG admits to a lifetime cost of £30Bn for Trident's replacement the true figure is going to be much greater. Lets say £50Bn over the next 50 years. Should we not be accepting that we are not a super power; that we have been unable to use Trident to deter the threats we presently face; and that Terrorists are not in any event going to be deterred by the threat of a city busting strike when they don't have any cities?
Personally I do not subscribe to the IND being our passport to a permenant seat on the UN Security Council - if mere possession of nukes is the criteria then presumably Israel; India; Pakistan; and query - N Korea would be there. I assume that the US would continue to want us there.
Thus, £30-50Bn freed up for flexible conventional forces - or £9Bn for JSF and the balance for bankers' bailouts.