Hang on, did the government not rule out any alternative to Trident on the basis that no alternatives really exist (that we could utilise), without being as, if not more expensive than Trident? Yet here we are talking about a nuclear strike capability on an aircraft we've been planning to acquire for over a decade and the lead customer claiming they need more people wanting a nuclear capability on it to make it viable...
Is it the whole national sovereignty nonsense that eliminated this option?
I've always been of the persuasion that we don't have nuclear weapons for the purpose of keeping us safe these days, but to keep us as a permanent member of the security council etc. This is of course my very humble opinion.