What, the fact that it's written by a Champagne Socialist, whose main agenda is the disarmament of the western stable powers first isn't enough to somewhat expose bias which the report has been written in the first place?

How about, despite the claims that the UK Deterrent is not independent, how he fails to backup it up with anything of substance, except to use soundbites from RAF Officiers who are disgruntled at the fact that a major role of their arm and hence funding has almost completely been ceded to the RN. The RAF, which incidently moved Australia 200 miles west, in order to support the assertion that the RAF could provide land based air cover anywhere on the plant?

Or how the UK could not apparently afford a Nuclear detterent. It's balatantly obvious the UK could, it would require a rearrangement of priorities certainly, but to suggest otherwise is simply implying that the author and people who agree with him, have suffered a recent & self induced rectal-cranium insertion.

Anybody who needs to have a 'single' counter argument pointed out to them, plainly has the cognitive capacity of the love child of Mark Owen and a Drug addled Jade Goody.
The Gods are too fond of a joke.
Aristotle