This is fairly on the dot, at least in regards with how the Indian [0][1], French [2], and Chinese [3] are approaching SMRs.

SMRs - like most other technology - are dual use.

[0] - https://www.stimson.org/2021/prospects-for-small-modular-rea...

[1] - https://maritime-executive.com/article/india-to-explore-supp...

[2] - https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defense/pa-ng-une-propulsion-...

[3] - https://cimsec.org/neither-fish-nor-fowl-chinas-development-...

I disagree with this take. The main claim here is that naval reactors are very expensive, and getting even more expensive as the civilian nuclear industry dwindles.

If only we could compare the cost of a submarine with and without the nuclear reactor. Fortunately we can: it is the French Suffren-class which is nuclear and has a conventional version, the Orka-class ([1], [2]). The cost of one Suffren-class is listen on wikipedia as €1.94 in 2022 money (or €2.1 in 2024 money) , and of one Orka-class as €1.4 in 2024 money. So the nuclear powered version is 50% more expensive, it would seem. Except that it has a much larger displacement, at 4690 tons vs 3248 tons for the conventional one (i.e 44% larger). So, all in all, it does not appear the reactor adds that much to the overall cost. Why? Military stuff is extraordinarily expensive already. One single torpedo fired by one of these submarines costs a whopping $5.39m in 2022 dollars. Firing such a torpedo is the equivalent of destroying about 20 Ferraris.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffren-class_submarine

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orka-class_submarine

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo