""Would you apply that line of argument to our Nuclear Deterrent?"
no, not if you can understand the meaning of the word deterrent ""
I understand the meaning of the word 'deterrent', and I still think that we should bin the UK's nuclear capability, as it's essentially impossible to get sensible questions to the following questions:
(a) Who is being deterred?
(b) If WMD is obtained by an asymmetric actor, who are you going to dete?
(c) If the asymmetric actor uses WMD against the UK (God forbid), who are you going to nuke in revenge? What level of intelligence do you need to lob the proverbial bucket of instant sunshine at an alleged State sponsor?
(d) How does building follow-on SSBN/Trident comply with our obligations to work towards nuclear disarmament in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
(e) How can we credibly say to Iran / North Korea that they shouldn't pursue nuclear weapons because they don't need them and that they're not big or clever if we pursue the retention of nuclear weapons until 2040?
And
(f) Who can vote the UK off the Security Council Permanent 5?
Of these, the clearest answer is to (f): any change to the Permanent 5 requires the Permanent 5 to vote for it - in other words, the UK has a veto and would have to vote in favour of removing itself. NO UK Government is going to vote in favour of this.
So if someone can sensibly explain why we are at greater risk if we abandon the UK's nuclear capability, and quantify this, then I'm all ears and if convinced, will change my view. But until then, I think that Trident is a counter-productive - and expensive - frippery that needs binning, now.
S41