I can't comment about Trident specifically. But I'm all for having nuclear weapons. I honestly believe MAD is what prevented large scale conflicts after WW2. Sure, it does nothing against terrorism or smaller conflicts, and I really don't see the threat of a global conflict even longterm, but it's nice to have insurance just in case. The other problem is of course that the technology just exists. If the wrong people get their hands on nukes and you don't have them yourself, you have already lost.
Well, first of all, other countries without NATO seems to do just as well without a deterrent. Germany is happy without nukes (And with spending only 1.4% of GDP on defense, compared to the UK's 2.5). Turkey, in an unstable neighborhood is just as happy without nukes of its own.
As NATO members Germany and Turkey don't need their own nukes, as they're protected by the NATO members that have them.
Turkey has one of the best armies in Eurasia, if you count them as part of Europe, they have the best military in Europe easily.
Germany on the other hand doesn't spend much on defense for historical reasons, public opinion wouldn't allow it, but it really shows. In a real conventional weapons conflict we would be totally fucked. The Bundeswehr can't even get enough recruits anymore now that conscription is abolished. Now I don't think it's that much of an issue due to NATO membership, and I could never wrap my head around the idea of joining the military myself, but under different circumstances this could be something to worry about.
They have US missiles on their soils, and maybe some tactical weapons they're using (like Belgium), but AFAIK they don't have the codes, and the weapons are managed by the US army, with the Germans and Turks only doing the delivery of the tactical weapons.
This. Publically propose Germany should have nukes and see what happens... The US missiles on our soil are a hot topic too.
Like I said in the other thread, we're specifically forbidden from having our own nukes by the re-unification treaty.