Because of opposition from the Liberal Democrats to the program, Britain's new government will revisit the costs of replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent.

Once first results trickled in, it was clear that Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg would be the kingmaker. And he was. Now the junior partner in a coalition with Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservatives, Clegg will try to leave a mark in British politics over the next years.

There is hardly any issue on which both parties are so starkly apart than military spending.

While the Conservatives have accused Gordon Brown's Labor government of underfunding the armed forces, the Liberal Democrats not only voted against the Iraq war, they want to further downsize the military budget.

A key issue is Britain's nuclear deterrent, a submarine-launched missile system called Trident.

The renewal of Trident was agreed in 2007 and is due by 2024. Yet in light of constrained budgets, the expensive program is being hotly debated.

While the Conservatives in their campaign supported the full renewal of Trident, the Lib Dems said they would want to come up with an alternative and cheaper way to defend Britain.

Both parties in their coalition agreement stopped short from making any concrete go or no-go statements; yet the strategic defense review that is to begin soon is expected to at least closely scrutinize the $32 billion program.

Critics argue the decision to renew Trident was rushed through Parliament to help BAE Systems, the British company that builds the submarines.

Clegg has in the past spoken against spending billions on what he said was a Cold War weapons system.

"I believe there is no case for the like for like replacement for that system," Clegg said in a speech at British foreign policy think tank Chatham House in March. "And I believe one of the reasons there is a deafening silence on that issue is because that missile system is cemented by a sense of indebtedness to our American friends. Our strategic interests will not be served unless we release ourselves from that spell of default Atlanticism which has prevailed so strongly since Suez."

The Lib Dems are backed by military leaders.

In a piece written last month for The Times of London, Field Marshal Edwin Bramall, Gen. David Ramsbotham, Gen. Hugh Beach and Maj. Gen. Patrick Cordingley say updating Britain's nuclear deterrent would threaten front-line forces and global disarmament.

Since the government decided to replace the Trident, there has been a "growing consensus that rapid cuts in nuclear forces ... is the way to achieve international security," they wrote.

Forging ahead could upset the international disarmament being pursued by U.S. President Barack Obama and burn money that could instead be spent on front-line troops, counter-terrorism work, helicopters, armored vehicles, frigates or manpower, they wrote.