I was quite excited when the US (and now apparently the UK) started to show signs of nuclear de-commissioning; what with Obama cancelling the missile defence shield and now Mr. Brown saying he's probably going to ditch one of the Trident subs, I felt like perhaps there really has been a sea change along with the administration change in the States.

Until my housemate pointed out that it's still only really going to take one missile to trigger a crisis. What's the point of getting rid of only a single submarine? While it's good on the one hand (I guess a few thousand/million less people will be killed/injured should the 'necessity' for a strike arise), it proves the point that nuclear weapons are still seen as a useful deterrent. It seems the British government are only dropping the fourth Trident to try and fill in part of the hole blasted in the budget by the bailout of the banks.

But it's obviously not a deterrent; Israel having the bomb hasn't stopped suicide bombers. America and the UK are still terrified of home-grown terrorists. Surely nuclear weapons are redundant now that old-style cold war battle scenarios are past? No single man with home made explosives strapped to his chest is going to be put off by the threat of a nuclear missile.

Can't the government do something a bit more constructive with the cash - think how many nurses' pay could be hiked, how many youth schemes could be funded, how the train network could be finally sorted and all those high speed train links commissioned. If we're going to make it about the money rather than the moral high ground, then surely as a deterrent, it's just not economically efficient; it doesn't do the job.