Bearing in mind that we have a special relationship with the only nation EVER to fire a nuclear weapon at another nation, and, bearing in mind, the unlikelihood of nuclear war (see the #81 authoritative post), and, bearing in mind, the cost of replacing Trident, and, bearing in mind, the title of this thread, and, bearing in mind, the national debt and deficit, and, bearing in mind, austerity has hit the low-paid when alternative options where and are still available, and, bearing in mind, Trident is no an independent weapon system (Lockheed Martin, USA), and, bearing in mind, the madness of firing one upon another nation - either as a pre-emptive strike or a retaliative strike, and, bearing in mind, that nuclear fall-out will have a negative effect on the global population irrespective of where in detonates, and, bearing in mind, that the UK is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and therefore is obliged to promote and perform nuclear disarmement, isn't there a case for nuclear disarmament?
After all, a precedence has been set...
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-story-how-south-africa-voluntarily-gave-its-nuclear-23449
Useful reading: "Our contribution towards the goal of multilateral disarmament is and will
continue to be strong. We will take every opportunity to pursue our resolute commitment to a world without nuclear weapons." Ambassador Joanne Adamson. Source: Statement on Nuclear Disarmament
https://www.un.org/disarmament/search/?cx=017879155571300835259%3Aszhio91zphq&ie=UTF-8&q=&q=uk
Worth bearing in mind.