Earlier this evening I heard Liam Fox give the conventional justification for the UK's retention of nuclear weapons, with a cogent repudiation of any unilateral removal of the nuclear capability.
It was a viewpoint that echoes my own.
He then said that this meant that we had to recapitalise the nuclear submarine force.
Hold up, I thought. That seems like a non sequitur.
I'm aware of the supposed 'studies' undertaken before the decision was taken to replace Trident with another SLBM, but I'm still not convinced that this level of strategic system is the only way, the best way, or an affordable way.
I don't mean that I support the only air launched option studied (two squadrons of A330 sized launch platforms) at the time. I don't.
But I do ask why SLBM?
Why not simple warheads that could be strapped on the front of Tomahawk/Storm Shadow and even freefall weapons that might be stuffed into the weapons bays of a JSF? Or to the front of a hypersonic stand off weapon like Boeing's HyFly when such a thing eventually becomes available?
A cheap and cheerful deterrent, in other words?
A deterrent that would be genuinely autonomous and under national command and control, and not tied into the USA's strategic nuclear forces like Polaris and Trident were.
Do we really still need to wipe Moscow off the map, all on our own-some? (And after Rust, do we still believe that only a SLBM could achieve that?)
Is an SLBM the only way of hitting North Korea - or even the best way?
Given that we need nukes, what do we need them for, and what's the cheapest and most cost effective nuclear capability we can get away with?