N-a-B
Quote:
I don't believe the TAR showed any such thing
We can agree to disagree on this one.
Er. No I don't think we can. Reproduce the exact part of the TAR that supports your statement. It's crucial to the whole argument. Paragraphs 1.6
The level of damage that the UK needs to be capable of inflicting is not absolute; it will vary depending on how critical a target the UK is perceived to be: if attacking the UK is essential to achieving an adversary‟s goal, deterring is likely to require a system capable of delivering greater damage than if the UK was a discretionary target. It does not depend on the scale of military capability that a potential aggressor possesses. For that reason, the study did not set a level of damage that a system must be able to cause in order to be "credible‟. Rather, the analysis aimed to show what level of capability could be delivered by different systems that are likely to be affordable.
and 1.9
The factors described above were distilled into a set of baseline assumptions, performance requirements and constraints. The key overarching requirement, which did not aim to replicate existing policy, was:
“A minimum nuclear deterrent capability that, during a crisis, is able to deliver at short notice a nuclear strike against a range of targets at an appropriate scale and with very high confidence.”
The study deliberately did not define “minimum”, “short notice”, “scale” or “very high confidence” as that could have overly-constrained the list of system options for analysis.
do not support your assertion.
It is probable that as noted in paras 3.7, 3.8, the short-range issue means the free-fall bomb fails the credibility criteria - and also compounds the vulnerability of the system referred to at 3.20.
Blithely assuming that it was not considered further "presumably because it would be cheaper than the Trident-based options" contradicts 1.6 above and is inconsistent with some of the cruise based options that did get comparisons, never mind being the option you want to believe.
If I were suspicious, I'd almost think you're hoping to offer an option that puts the LD on the same page as the SNP in Scotland, which would make coalition there easier and avoid wipeout. The likelihood of any LD ringfencing any Trident funding saved and putting it towards defence also fails any credibility criteria...