"Nukes are a waste of time in a British context. We can't use Trident without american permission, and it's inconceivable we'd ever use it without american involvement, so it's basically an extension of the American Nuclear armament paid for by the British taxpayer. We'd be better off ditching our nuclear detterent and re-investing it in conventional forces that will actually be used and are sorely neglected at the moment."
Yuh. It's pretty hard to pin down what exactly having Trident achieves that wouldn't be getting achieved exactly the same if we didn't have it. In that sense, given limited military resources, it's not hard to make an argument that the money could be spent more effectively. Not sure anyone's much interested in making that argument though.
please read posts 11 and 13.