"You have terrorists detonating themselves in London, you have at least two radical anti-western countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons and delivery systems and you have the behemoth of China building modern weapon systems at a rate not seen since WWII.......and you want to rid your military of the most effective deterrence weapon in existence?"
Well, the terrorists already detonated themselves and didn't seem particularly deterred by the threat of a nuclear response (there was never much chance of Blair nuking Leeds to be fair). Not sure we have enough weapons to deter China from anything. And the deterrence effect of other countries who may be pursuing nuclear weapons is theoretical at best.
Basically, they're not aimed at anyone, and they're not deterring anyone. It's unlikely that we can even launch the things without American authorisation, unlike the French who spent vastly more money originally to develop an independent system. Trident is only of use as a status symbol, an attempt to continue to portray power. At a time when our soldiers in Iraq are suffering from lack of proper equipment it's an absurd allocation of resources.
Interesting post, let me understand correctly. Your soldiers do not have proper equipment, you military is in disarray and maintaining nuclear weapons and the delivery system, Royal Navy submarines, isn't feasible.....because your launch codes come from Washington D.C. and it's a status symbol to have the ability to annihilate entire countries......