Submarine launched ICBMs probably wouldn't be valuable without nuclear weapons though: they're valuable because they're a guaranteed second-strike capability to a nuclear first strike - you might plausibly get the land and air launchers, but there's no way to be sure you got all the subs and you only have to miss 1 (i.e. no country would survive losing 28 major cities).
Without nuclear weapons, they're kind of pointless - you don't inflict enough damage to warrant the expense. But the first strike is also so much more survivable.
Which country is "we"? The US has 14 Ohio class SSBNs in service until at least 2029
Re:Deliberately optimizing for harm
by therealcamino on Wednesday March 16, 2022 @04:27PM
(#30703611)
Probably the UK.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operat...
Re:Deliberately optimizing for harm
by KineticLensman on Wednesday March 16, 2022 @04:57PM
(#30703991)
Yes, the UK (I should have made this more explicit).
The UK's current deterrent force is currently expected to be replaced by the successor Dreadnought class [0] in the 2030s. They are currently projected to cost £31 billion (likely an underestimate) for four subs, each of which can carry 8 missiles max. Again, these are a horribly expensive way to deliver conventional explosives when we have cruise missiles instead.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought-class_submarine
For sub-launched ICBMs (like the UK's nuclear deterrent) you also need to factor in the through-life costs of the launcher platform, and the fact that once it starts launching, it has given itself away. We only have four subs, not all of which are on patrol, so it would be barking to compromise these to deliver a conventional payload.