At World Politics Review, I argue that replacement of the British SSBN force is not in the interests of the United States:
Just as important, however, is the money that would be saved from foregoing Trident replacement, which could be spent in other areas. The United States has depended on the United Kingdom as a military partner for the last 60 years. During that time, robust British naval and expeditionary warfare capabilities have supported and substituted for U.S. capabilities in key areas. Simply put, nuclear missile submarines are deployed to hide and wait. As a result, they can't address the highest-priority threats to global security today, such as countering terrorists, deterring pirates, and conducting disaster relief, most of which require a visible presence. A hollow, gutted British military, albeit one in possession of a formidable nuclear deterrent, is of little use to the United States.