If the RAF did have nukes, what would it use to drop them?
I suppose you could strap one on a Tornado at Marham and go and 'brighten up somebody's day' in Norwich.
When the Americans developed their nuclear deterrent it was argued that - for an effective deterrent - they needed ICBMs in land-based silos, submarine-based missiles and air-launched missiles/bombs. That suited the cold war threat.
The RAF lost its nukes as a result of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties. If the RAF didn't need nukes in 1995 and if the Cold War is over, why does the UK need a fleet of submarine-launched nukes? What is the current nuclear threat? Which country is likely to launch a nuclear strike against the UK?
Given that the present government (and the next government) will probably make drastic defence cuts, does that nuclear threat take priority over national air defence or equipping other forces adequately? (and I'm thinking particularly of those soldiers currently deployed.)
The UK does not have the force levels (or the equipment) to use nuclear weapons as a part of an independent 'flexible response'. In the event that the UK was to declare war on another country, it has neither the forces nor equipment to fill the gap between the initial stages of the conflict - send in the Army - and all-out nuclear war.
Submarine-launched missiles make sense as a part of the UK's contribution to NATO, but if the UK can't afford to spend the necessary money on the other sectors of defence and if the UK must make drastic cuts, then surely eliminating the Trident fleet would provide savings to offset against the next government's cuts without emasculating the remainder of the UK armed forces?
If the UK did scrap Trident-armed submarines, then no doubt there would be an outcry from other NATO members. The US contributes handsomely, but the other NATO members might then find that they had to dig deeper into their own pockets to provide funds to make up the difference.
If the UK wishes to maintain a 'tripwire' nuclear deterrent, wouldn't it be far cheaper to establish one or two geographically-separated silos loaded with ICBMs on land?