Should we spend billions replacing Trident?

I AM baffled by david Cameron’s sudden declaration that his new government would spend £100 billion on replacing the Trident nuclear submarine fleet. While Putin remains a baleful presence, russia is not the nuclear threat it was. our potential — and actual — enemies are now different. one concern are the falklands Islands, and to protect them we used to have exactly the right kit: the Ark royal aircraft carrier and the Harrier jump-jet fleet. But these were scrapped by Mr Cameron almost as soon as he got his feet under the desk. Labour weren’t innocent, either. Having spent vast sums on developing Nimrod, one of their last acts in 2010 was to cancel a world-class airborne early-warning system, with the almost-complete planes being chopped up. The security services grumble about being stretched to deal with internal matters, surveillance and monitoring, and £100 billion would comfortably cover however many people they need to do their job properly. Surely the existing Trident system still works? After all, nuclear missiles don’t have a best-before date.

MARTIN BRADLEY, Hampton, Middlesex. DEFENCE Secretary Michael Fallon’s determination to waste billions on nuclear submarines while slashing welfare services, coupled with his disgraceful attack on Ed Miliband, makes my decision not to support his party even easier.

B. CREWS, Beckenham, kent. WE NEED Trident to protect our children and grandchildren. In a future world with unstable countries such as Iran and North Korea in possession of nuclear weapons, it would be insanity to give up unilaterally the only sure way of defending ourselves. of course nuclear weapons must go — all of them, but that is a long-term project. So let the SNP and the far Left posture and fantasise as much as they wish on defence. Labour will lose many more votes than they gain.

ALEXANDER MCKAY, Edinburgh.