Is Cameron thinking of ditching Trident?

Michael White at his Guardian blog once again looks at the vexed question of whether we should ditch Trident?

The subject has been brought up on a number of occassions on this blog as a way of making a rather large contribution to lowering public debt.

It wouldn't be a clean break, whoever decides it is time for imperial Britain to call it a day.

But there are signs that the Tories are looking at the issue quite seriously

Cameron let the nuclear cat out of the bag at yesterday's press conference when he placed the issue within the wider need for a defence review when he takes power and assesses the battered-but-still-functioning state of UK armed forces.

it is clear that the Trident submarines are not much of a deterrent to a suicide bomber.

With the fiscal deficit spiralling out of control and the possibility that more may still need to be pumped into the economy,maybe there is one way to plug the gap.

Cancel the replacement for Trident.

Rachel Sylvester's column in this morning's Times asks the question

It is estimated that the replacement will cost between £15 billion and £20billion, but with annual upkeep of £1.5 billion, the total over 30 years could rise above £65 billion.

This saving would decrease the whole somewhat and pales into significance any costs savings or tax increases that could otherwise cover the black hole.

The nature of warfare has changed as Rachel writes

it is clear that the Trident submarines are not much of a deterrent to a suicide bomber.

So maybe the time has come finally to end the days of the independent nuclear deterrent