Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's supposing that the weapons work as advertised. The UK is entirely reliant on Trident for its nuclear deterrent, and it is reliant on support from the USA to maintain Trident. If Trident turns out not to work very well (which is entirely possible), or if relations with the USA sour, or if ballistic missile submarines turn out to be easier to detect and/or more vulnerable than expected, then the UK could very we…
The UK's Trident missile system is not dependant on the US for launch control[0]. All the other what ifs you've mentioned are the same for both sides. The thing about nuclear war is that you can't attach the UK without attacking France. What's more, you can't attack Russia without attacking the UK and France. In a nuclear winter we all die. Everywhere. It's like letting of a hand grenade in an elevator. You can throw…
I didn't say that it was. But we do depend on the USA for maintenance and support. The independent all-party Trident commission concluded that the deterrent could not be maintained for more than a few months if the US were to withdraw cooperation: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blo...
>All the other what ifs you've mentioned are the same for both sides.
No, because Russia and USA have the nuclear triad. The UK only has one method of delivery. France has two.