You never can tell

Apparently, according to mainstream media outlets, there is a majority in this country in favour of retaining Trident, the 'independent' nuclear 'deterrent' (just as American support for the Second Amendment for the right to mount bear arms on their walls is on the rise).  Jeremy Corbyn is badgered on whether he would 'press the button', but no-one asks David Cameron if he would (Radio 4's PM did ask Downing Street for a response but it was met with a wall of silence).
My viewpoint doesn't come from pacifism or wishy-washy CND idealism but hard-headed realism.  At a time when a few million here and there are saved on the removal of working and third child (and more) tax credits are scheduled to be withdrawn, yet the government is prepared to blow £100bn on renewing a white elephant (or, given its submariner nature, perhaps it should be a white whale).  It is the same with the Tories giving a £2bn guarantee to a solitary atomic mill to produce ridiculously expensive electricity, while removing £500m subsidies to renewables that is seeing a swathe of nascent enterprises bite the dust (especially in solar) or never get off the ground in the first place (Drax's cancellation of its carbon capture facility).  It is truly heinous and an indirect crime against humanity given how important is the battle against man-made climate change.  Like New Labour's PFI's in health it is mortgaging the future to the hilt - we gave your tomorrows so we could have our political todays.
Who will we use Trident against?  Terrorists won't be deterred, nor the fanatics in Daesh and a MIRV won't open up and obliterate Raqqa or Mosul.  Despite the very real nuclear deterrents of the USA and France and China's fury at the violation of sovereign borders, Russia still has engaged in land grabs in Georgia and the Ukraine with more or less impunity.  Oh yes, I mentioned the American arsenal, the guaranteed nuclear umbrella to all NATO members - so if the Americans are already protecting us, it may be uncomradely but we can free-ride on them without them ever being in position to withdraw it.  I have little problem if the Americans want to station nuclear missiles in our land because Britain would be automatically be a target if ever America got involved in World War Three.  And of our four submarines, three are laid-up/mothballed at any one time.  So all of our deterrent resides in single boat - how pathetic.  In a contest of willy-waving at the urinals, Britain would use a locked-door cubicle.  And it's not really independent as America supplies the warheads and would tell Britain how to hold its willy.
I have been quite strident on voting, given that I even vote in police commissioner ballots.  Those who don't fulfil their civic duty (or at least spoil their ballot) that was fought for by our ancestors should be relocated to North Korea to see how its like to live in a system where there isn't a plurality of candidates on offer (Kim Jong-Un has recently said hereditary succession is best for the leadership of socialist states).  Given the political vogue, perhaps we should have a referendum on whether to keep Trident - the cost of staging such and election would be a miniscule fraction of the cost of Trident.  The big argument in favour of renewal is that you never know what the future may hold.  I agree and if a vote is in favour of keeping Trident, everyone who supported it should be compelled to build 40ft-50ft deep with reinforced concrete nuclear bomb shelters under their property out of their own funds (landlords and tenancy agencies are not exempt, if a majority of their tenants voted in favour).  Expensive?  Yes.  Unnecessary?  Yes.  But you never know...