As it clearly concerns you - being bombed, that is - surely you can see that having the ability to retaliate means you can, in fact, sleep easier? I'm not sure that you're being consistent here; on the one hand you say you can see the arguments for having Trident, on the other you are convinced it's a waste of money. Granted, it's very pricey, as is anything designed to protect an entire nation, but surely the portion of our taxes that goes to the defence budget is something we should be happy to contribute to? I agree, it's of little use in Iraq and Afganistan but that's a moot point as, like you I suspect, I don't believe we should be there. The point is this: there are mad tyrants in the world who are gaining in power - look to Korea, for example, for the first signs of instability - and who, like many have gone before, may well have delusions of world domination. It's always been like this - we are not, in any way, one big, happy family of nations all existing in the perfect harmony of an aged Blue Mink hit. Say one of those tyrants decides he fancies unleashing his firepower on a country that would show his might; if he knows they would simply wipe him out in a retaliatory attack, he's much, much less likely to do so. He'll choose someone who can't retaliate. Get rid of Trident, and the resultant vulnerability you leave the county open to is worth far more to thers than the price we pay for a deterrent.