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.
Clegg and Beaker were specifically allowed to run a government study on this during the coalition years and it was widely publicised. See below.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...natives-review
It comprehensively debunked their naïve wibblings, not least because all these nuclear tipped SLCM that people fondly imagine could be strapped into an A-boat, don't actually exist - nor do suitable warheads. And that's before you get into the issues about penetrability / survivability and most importantly the issue of ambiguity given people have been lobbing TLAM about with relative abandon over the last twenty-odd years.