British government ‘optioneering’ - studies that have looked at alternative force postures

Kristan Stoddart

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Abstract

This article will first examine what alternatives there were to upgrade Britain’s Polaris force and what to replace it with in the period from 1964-1980. It will then look at the choices for the number of submarines that were discussed for Polaris and Trident and how similar these choices are to the current debate regarding Trident renewal or replacement. By the early 1960s it was recognised that Polaris missiles were potentially vulnerable to Soviet anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) and steps needed to be taken to address this situation. A range of options was looked at to mitigate this threat, these included improvements to Polaris or purchasing the next generation Poseidon missile from the United States. After the decision was made to carry forward the Chevaline upgrade to UK Polaris in 1975 thoughts then moved to a successor system. As a result from 1977-1982 the British government decided to purchase Trident C-4 from the United States in 1980 and then the D-5 version in 1982.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2009
EventStepping Down the Nuclear Ladder: Options for UK Nuclear Weapons Policy, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, 17–18 September, 2009. - Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Duration: 17 Sept 200918 Sept 2009

Conference

ConferenceStepping Down the Nuclear Ladder: Options for UK Nuclear Weapons Policy, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, 17–18 September, 2009.
Country/TerritoryUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
CityBradford
Period17 Sept 200918 Sept 2009

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'British government ‘optioneering’ - studies that have looked at alternative force postures'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this