Trident debate: Should Britain have its own nuclear weapons arsenal?
Michael Fallon says £25bn is a 'price worth paying' for Britain's security
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Michael Fallon has said the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent will be at the heart of the general election debate, accusing Labour of being willing to scrap the Trident programme as part of a deal with the SNP.
The Conservative Defence Secretary faced his own accusations of "mud-slinging" after he said Ed Miliband's willingness to "stab his brother [David] in the back" to win the Labour leadership showed he would be prepared to "stab the United Kingdom in the back" if he wins in May.
Britain maintains four nuclear submarines, with at least one on full alert at any given time - and none of the major parties have pledged to change that.
But the Greens, the SNP in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales have all called for the UK to set an example of nuclear disarmament and for the savings to be diverted to other public services.
So what do you think? Is Mr Fallon right that £25 billion is "a price well worth paying to keep this country safe"? Or is the country better off not spending so much money on a weapon no one seriously thinks could be deployed anyway?
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments