Originally Posted by
incubus
Just addressing those 2 points.
Deterrence is based on the existence of a credible threat.
There is no point in threatening retaliation with our orbital mass-driver because we don't have one and everybody knows we don't have one. It isn't a credible threat.
While we do have nuclear weapons, I believe that the majority of nations and organisations feel that we would be extremely unlikely to use them, therefore the threat is not credible unless we demonstrate our willingness.
The use of our conventional forces is credible and their effectiveness and our willingness to use them has been demonstrated regularly over a long period of time. I don't know how effective a deterrent it is though and we may never know.
Exactly - if we're not prepared to use it (and I very much doubt that we would) then Trident is an expensive white elephant. Its replacement will be just as white and even more expensive.