The CentreForum paper offers some interesting perspectives. At the moment we are faced with the prospect of spending a vast sum of money to replace Vanguard, which, while absorbing a large proportion of the defence budget, is totally inflexible and has actually no military relevance. At the same time it prevents us in the foreseeable future from deploying capabilities which have real strategic and tactical flexibility and military relevance, such as proper aircraft carriers, effective naval and airforce combat aircraft, MPA, proper AAR etc.
In my opinion, as we already possess it, the UK would be foolish not to retain some measure of independent nuclear deterrent as a last ditch card that also delivers some political advantages. However, I also believe that a Vanguard submarine based deterrent, while making some sense in the Cold War threat scenario, is no longer purposeful. Who or what is the threat to the UK alone that it is supposed to deter?
If we proceed as currently planned we will end up for the coming decades with two vast, expensive helicopter carriers which can carry a single, expensive, high risk, second best fighter type with which the RAF will also be saddled, no effective escorts to protect them, no useful means of on board aerial replenishment or AEW, and no MPA. We might, however, be able to deter Russia from taking over Europe using nuclear weapons, though not if they stick to conventional weapons and if that is their intention.
Does that really make proper sense? Better to reduce the mirage of a strategic nuclear deterrent to a more realistic minimum to permit our conventional military capabilities achieve a proper footing.