Speak softly but carry a big stick?

So just where does Labour stand on replacing Trident?  Officially they are in favour, but their leader is implacably opposed, and is looking for ways to change their policy - mainly, as mentioned the other day, by putting the decision more in the hands of party activists, rather than his MPs.  Of course, a big problem is that the Trident programme supports an enormous number of jobs.  Scrap Trident and you put thousands of people out of work.  And Corbyn's solution?  Keep the submarines (and therefore the jobs) but scrap the nuclear warheads.  But this is sort of having your cake and eating it, isn't it?  How can you justify the expenditure on the submarines and infrastructure, if they carry no real threat?  It strikes me that this is an all-or-nothing situation - either we are in the game, or we pick up our chips and leave. Nobody can ever be sure of course, but it seems likely that the fact that there hasn't been an all-out nuclear war (and I'm old enough to remember shitting myself over the Cuban missile crisis) is down to the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) approach, in which our nuclear subs have played their part.  Who knows what the next 50 or so years will bring?  I think the Scout motto applies here - be prepared.