@John Ruddy
"Well, it was an interesting article, apart from the fact it didnt discuss the real question - what is our nuclear force actually for?"
The way I would put it in UK terms is the rise of gangs. People wont do anything about them because to attack one would cause the others to duff you in. As the article makes clear we cannot rely on someone else (our allies) stepping in to protect our irradiated remains but by having the sub somewhere in the world and able to respond regardless of the UK's situation we have the equivalent of the unknown members of our gang ready to brick their windows, slash their tires and kill them in the street.
The same principal works in school and prison that you want to project an appearance of strength and actually having strength is even more important. It makes a tiny island frequently invaded and attacked less likely to be invaded and attacked. War has changed from countries with defined borders to groups of terrorists, but thats because these nuclear deterrents make it difficult to justify normal warfare.
In a utopia these things wouldnt be needed, do we have a utopia? No. Instead we have the stronger in your face and threatening and the weaker trying to stab you in the back. By reducing the people willing to get in your face you are left defending against backstabbers. But if you let your guard down some bully (look to the US over snowden and iran) will get in your face.
Finally there are the plain crazy. NK is a great case for a nut case. We have delusional warmongers developing nukes. If they want to start firing I would be much happier knowing they were reduced to a wasteland. Might even stop them firing off more and save many lives.
"Trident was designed to deal with a Soviet Union hell bent on our destruction. That threat has gone"
I assume you clean your home? Do you do it once and have no future fear of germs/etc? Or do you keep it up to keep yourself protected.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
