Originally Posted by
malcrf
For this question it turns on whether it is cheaper, not whether it is technologically possible (it seems it is) or better (not part of the original question). And as for cheaper, no idea!
Actually, the question turns not on whether it is "better" than an SLBM, but whether it can be considered anything like "equivalent".
If your criterion of successful deterrence is to be able to deliver a bucket of sunshine to an unspecified target, without much consideration of defences or potential vulnerability of that deterrent to an attack, that's one thing. Many describe that as the flatten Tehran / Pyongyang / Paris
option. If on the other hand you consider deterrence to be against a much more capable threat, the old Moscow criterion (particularly given current trends) is rather hard to argue against.
It's only a limited to a question of cost if you compare like with like.....