In the news

I think this debate sums up some of the conflicting issues with the nukes.

• A nuclear deterrent is really expensive cause you can't half arse it or it's useless.
  
• It's cheaper if you share or lease some of the difficult tech from an ally, but then you have to rely on that ally long-term.
  
• You can decide to do it all yourself, but then it's even more expensive.
  
• You can ditch the whole thing and rely on diplomacy, but then you're back to relying on allies if it comes to a nuclear showdown, which essentially leaves you cosying up to either the Americans or the Russians.
  
  

And that's before you get to the tricky ethical issue of potentially unleashing fiery death on millions of innocent people. Tricky stuff this. I think we might need a few more pages to nail it.