Looks like having to be paid out of the MOD budget click here
But as we all know, by the time it's delivered, it will be much more than the quoted £20 billion. I think that maybe it's a tactic to put off replacement for 10 years or so until we are in a better financial state. By which time the government (me & you & a dog named Boo) will pay for it. I can't see the MOD ordering it when they are already overstretched with their overseas obligations.
Seen a program the other day about building a ordinary nuke sub and it was equiped with Tomahawk cruise missiles, i thought these missiles were capable of carrying atomic warheads, so why bother with Trident???
The problem is that who knows what threats will we face in 15 - 20 years time? (? Iran, N Korea, Hopefully not China or Pakistan). The lead time is such that if we want to retain the deterrent we have to plan it now. I am not sure why it is we cannot share with France to have one "bomber" S/M at sea rather than one each. With regret I think we do need a strategic weapons system, but it should be paid for outside the normal MOD budget.
Remember Alexander Litvinenko,poisened by Plutonium 210,the plotonium came over on a British airways aircraft.So there we have it those submarines shure did stop that nuclear attack into our country.I think tridend is a big boys case of "measwell",you`ve got nuclear weapens and big submarines "me as well".