I mean, I hope that we can get some sort of refund on Trident. It’s not like we ever, you know, used it. Just drove it around a lot, and hardly even showed it to anyone. Never fired in anger, or indeed in an expression of boundless joy.
Come on, someone must want an only-slightly-dented nuclear deterrent, fits into submarines, undetectable, etc etc.
Remind me, though – why are we buying a new Trident? Is it that the existing one is too easy to track? In which case the problem isn’t the missiles themselves, but the submarines, so what we need is new submarines, not new missiles. (Brief read of paper.) OK, so it’s the reactors on the submarines which are wearing out (getting too irradiated, grumpy in the mornings, won’t do its washing up, etc etc).
I love this suggestion that we’d keep it to make sure that “rogue” states didn’t sponsor nuclear terrorism. Um-hm. Because, what, we’d say that if they did then we’d nuke their ass? Come on. That’s so disproprortionate it’s not true. Yes, it is good to have a nuclear deterrent; everyone from Iran to North Korea to Israel to, well, us is able to follow the logic of having a bigger stick. The case for “replacing” Trident (actually, replacing the ageing submarines) has been made so incoherently badly, though, that it must be all Alastair Campbell can do to restrain himself from running up to 10 Downing Street and yelling “FOR GOD’S SAKE LET ME BACK IN YOU INCAPABLE IDIOTS!”
Then again, look where it got us when he was there.