I'm undecided as to the merits of spending £25bn on a sub launched system, when the likely (?) recipients of a British nuke do not have a credible AD capability.
I doubt whether the Iraninan AD organisation (to pick one example at random) could defend against a decent stand off weapon such as ALCM.
Therefore, as we're not considering anyone with a decent AD infrastructure (such as the Russians, Chinese or possibly the Indians) a threat, wouldn't an ALCM system or the like be equally as effective. Given of course, that the US would sell us some Tomahawks in the first place.
An interesting article in Prospect magazine ran the hypothesis that an unidentified Islamic state targeted the UK with it's first ICBMs in a soviet style 'standing start' attack because a. we are seen very much as an extension of the US's foreign policy, and therefore exert some leverage in Washington due to the special relationship(whatever that is?); and b. if we were to give up our weapons then the US, when it really came down to it, wouldn't sacrifice Birmigham Alabama for Birmingham West Midlands, and the Islamacists would have won a first strike.
Surely, if we don't have absolute control of our sub launched system, it fails to be a deterrent at all. Absolute control over the lesser ALCM option would seem cheaper and preferable ?
Well, it does to me after three glasses of wine, but then again I'm not that bright even when sober.
Your thoughts ?
Cheers,
MoT