Trident, do we need it?

[Clinton Huxley]

Having our "independent" nuclear deterrent already makes us a client state of the USA...

Assuming arguendo that said allegation is true, at least then you're making a contribution to the overall defense of "the West" instead of leaving it all to someone else.

Our deterrent is effectively a franchise - we can't even use it without American permission. In what circumstances do you think that would be granted?

[Clinton Huxley]

Having our "independent" nuclear deterrent already makes us a client state of the USA...

Assuming arguendo that said allegation is true, at least then you're making a contribution to the overall defense of "the West" instead of leaving it all to someone else.

So, conventional forces make no contribution? Germany and Holland make no contribution to the "defence of the West"?

[Coito ergo sum]

Having our "independent" nuclear deterrent already makes us a client state of the USA...

Assuming arguendo that said allegation is true, at least then you're making a contribution to the overall defense of "the West" instead of leaving it all to someone else.

So, conventional forces make no contribution? Germany and Holland make no contribution to the "defence of the West"?

Not zero, but to abdicate the role of developing, maintaining, and in the most unfortunate circumstance "using" these terrible weapons, you cede the dirty work to one party of the alliance. It's a good way to live under the umbrella of someone else's protection, but at the same time retain for oneself the supposed moral high ground of being able to wag a judgmental finger at the protector for the manner in which that protection is provided.

Germany wasn't rebuilt after world war 2, in which they were the enemy, until the early 1980's, at least, and weren't even allowed to have much of a military at all until quite recently, and the first German forces deployed anywhere outside of Germany since 1945 was in Afghanistan in 2002. There were good reasons for that, given the little thing about them being the enemy, starting a war that killed 40+ million people, and trying to take over the world, etc.

Holland isn't Britain. You're the United Fucking Kingdom, man! Holland does contribute, but they would hardly be missed if they didn't. The UK would be missed. Very much so. I don't think we generally view the UK as a "client state." We moreso view the UK as an "ally" and, and a strong one.

[Clinton Huxley]

I think the UK would "contribute" more effectively by scrapping the nukes and enlarging conventional forces. I hear US commanders in Afghanistan are very scathing about the performance of the British Army - and this is boils down to the BA being too small now and getting smaller.

Who will provide the US with the fig leaf of a "coalition" if the UK can no longer contribute?

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the UK would "contribute" more effectively by scrapping the nukes and enlarging conventional forces. I hear US commanders in Afghanistan are very scathing about the performance of the British Army - and this is boils down to the BA being too small now and getting smaller.

Who will provide the US with the fig leaf of a "coalition" if the UK can no longer contribute?

You contribute just fine. Look at Libya, wherein the UK and France led the coalition with the US providing only back up support. I think that to suggest that the UK military is a mere fig leaf of cover is to seriously insult the quality of your forces, which are quite good. The UK military is among the best quality in the world - top 3 probably.

[Clinton Huxley]

I think the UK would "contribute" more effectively by scrapping the nukes and enlarging conventional forces. I hear US commanders in Afghanistan are very scathing about the performance of the British Army - and this is boils down to the BA being too small now and getting smaller.

Who will provide the US with the fig leaf of a "coalition" if the UK can no longer contribute?

You contribute just fine. Look at Libya, wherein the UK and France led the coalition with the US providing only back up support. I think that to suggest that the UK military is a mere fig leaf of cover is to seriously insult the quality of your forces, which are quite good. The UK military is among the best quality in the world - top 3 probably.

The US was indispensable to the Libyan effort. Neither the UK nor France would have been able to mount operations without US "back-up". UK military is underfunded and it's really starting to show. US forces in Iraq called them "the borrowers" as they would scavenge from US military dumps. We went into Afghanistan with Land Rovers. We won't have a fully operational aircraft carrier until 2030 now ( if ever). We were defeated in Basra and ineffective in Afghanistan. Operating on a shoe string.