You're welcome to you opinion, JimLad, but (i) you're completely wrong on my motivation in writing this and (ii) others don't agree with you.
From the
Media Release
Paul Ingram, Executive Director, British American Security Information Council (BASIC), said:
"The government thought they had sunk the debate over any credible alternatives, but overstretched their credibility when claiming that like-for-like replacement of Trident is the only viable option. This report demonstrates more clearly than any other that a new government must reopen the review and properly consider all options and capabilities afresh, placing national and international security at the heart of the discussion."
Dr Jeffrey Lewis, Director of East Asia Non-Proliferation Program, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, said:
"Finding the funds to pay for Trident replacement is shaping up to be a major challenge for the next UK government. It doesn't have to be, as CentreForum demonstrates in this smartly argued brief for a credible but much more cost effective nuclear deterrent relying on aircraft delivered gravity bombs."
Dr Nick Ritchie, Lecturer, International Security, University of York, said:
"CentreForum has produced a very timely report that challenges Whitehall's political fixation on Trident and its proposed replacement. It builds an authoritative case that if the UK remains committed to deploying nuclear weapons then it makes strategic and fiscal sense to opt for an air delivered system based on the Joint Strike Fighter (F35 Lightning II). In doing so CentreForum opens up the debate on Britain's nuclear future as we head into the general election in terms of whether to retain nuclear weapons at all, if so, what a UK nuclear arsenal might look like."
Which comes back to the question of choice. What UK conventional force are you prepared to live with to retain CASD?