Ditto.
So much hogwash about the effect on local jobs, as if somehow that should hold any bearing on nuclear prevalance.
Or conversely how 31 Billion could otherwise be spent for that matter.
We either need it or we don't, end of.
But I'm more dismayed at the apparent absence of a debate upon it's nature.
Vague rumblings about the invincibility of a submarine launch platform. And an apparent presumption that ICBMs are the only viable weapon.
Have nuclear tipped SLCMs been considered for example? If you want to talk economics, how many of those could you get for the same money?
If you could get say ten times as many, is that a more viable/versatile option even after you factor in it's presumed greater vulnerability to air defences?
I'd just like to be reassured that this debate has in fact taken place.
Cooch