"1: Extended deterrence makes the Trident systems obsolete.  As a member of both NATO and the EU, Britain has close alliances with two nuclear powers: the US and France.  Alone, either nation provides a strong deterrent force.  Together, its credibility in launching a deadly retaliation is pretty much guaranteed, short of some advance in missile defense systems.  In addition, Britain has non-submarine missile systems, such as aircraft and ICBMs.  Britain just doesn't need the Trident subs."
Adding another nation increases the chances on a successful deterrence and a failed first preventive first strike that destroys all capability to retaliate. Next to that, would any of those nations risk self-destruction for another nation? Or try to make an agreement with the enemy and survive? They would make any effort to tell their enemies they would retaliate if their ally is under attack but if it is true is another question.

Britain has aircraft's, but it is not very cost-effective compared to subs. And its success is not always guaranteed. An ICBM can be destroyed on the ground in a first strike. If they place 100 or 1000 won't make any difference.

"2: Nuclear submarines are risky business.
A: Accidents.  Historically, there have been multiple instances of nuclear submarines colliding into one another.  There's a number of reasons for why these accidents happen, but they undeniably occur.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/int

"This discussion has become somewhat historical, but the question is, is MAD relevant in a post - cold war era when there are no two major powers with any desire to destroy each other?"
Russia is a major power and so is china. Both are unreliable dictatorships.

only one post? Even tough its a copy-paste, I think this flint is a FAKE!

I'm thinking about it, but as a Belgian, I would loose 1/2 on tax. That wouldn't pay for my airplane ticket. I would also have to sell paintings.

k lol

America, my cat, just went on with her life after 9/11. Can we close the thread now?

@esa:
I would rather see him accompany Han Solo.

@wfs:
Its the definition thing again. There is a difference between the ideals, the fascist and socialist states that existed or exist, and the way how to get to one of those ideals. We all know that.

But the third Reich and the soviet union under Stalin had a lot in common. I think kemp meant regimes reflecting those but with modern aspects. In that case he is right.

lol@kollop
@justinian:
I agree with everything except the last sentence. I think marriage has its huge disadvantages but can offer a certain stability and security to a persons relationship. If the gains are higher then the cost depends from person to person. I have to admit tough its hard, maybe impossible to know what the effect will be on the average relationship.

@avo:
same story but I was about 18 so I have no excuses. How times flies, doesn't it?

@avo:
"yeah, but i really just copied the OP's simplification of the truth."
yeah, I see that now. You still have an interesting view on anarchy, but it has changed a little if I'm not mistaken.:p Although I disagree still, I have to admit you're about the only anarchist ever in this forum with a somewhat interesting view upon anarchism, that is why I remember. The few other anarchists that came here weren't very brilliant.

@V.kemp:
Little Paul isn't the name of my.. er... you know! It is to separate 2 different Pauls in the dune theme.