Originally Posted by vernon99
We simply do not know what conflicts have been prevented as a result of being a member of the nuclear club. So for that reason it is a good thing to have, as I said earlier it isn't that expensive.
Do not become confused between having a nuclear strike capability and having a nuclear deterrent - they are actually subtly different things.
Having a strike capability says to the smaller players that we have the ability to deploy overwhelming force pretty much as you've said.
Having a system like Trident also says that, but more importantly it says to the big players that if they glass us we will be able to strike back and glass them. This is really an indefensible position and I don't for one second believe that we would (or if we have leaders who would, they should have the option removed from them.)
On this basis we ought to retain a nuclear capability but do not need a dedicated deterrence system (permanently deployed missile boats)