2013 This report examines the “damage criteria” used by the MOD in planning the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and more recent replacements, and how a desire for particular weapons systems has reshaped the amount of damage considered acceptable. By John Ainslie Download if the embedded viewer has a problem
Unacceptable Damage
Ivo Daalder, ‘Miller consults with allies on nuclear posture review.’
04 September 2009.
-
Categories:
- Ainslie Archive Box 7
- NATO
- Nuclear posture
- US – UK co-operation
US Department of Defence, Nuclear Operations and Targeting, ‘Guidance for the sanitization and distribution of information pertaining to nuclear command and control to Supreme HQ Allied Powers Europe.’
12 August 2008.
‘Red Snow /W28: A Special Nuclear Relationship, Pages 214 & 215.’
No date.
John R. Walker, ‘Extract: British Nuclear Weapons and the Test Ban 1954-1973 Britain, the United States, Weapons Polices and Nuclear Testing: Tensions and Contradictions (Ashgate: Farnham, 2010) John R. Walker pp 325-327.’
03 August 2010.
Ainslie notes, US nuclear war planning, ‘Trident Targeting and Fire Control.’
No date.
‘British Trident dependence on the US, Submarine communications, VLF and LF.’
No date.
Serco Rakmulti, Royal Navy projects
No date.
-
Categories:
- Ainslie Archive Box 6
- Royal Navy
- US – UK co-operation
- US Navy
Ainslie Notes, Progress with the UK’s Future Nuclear weapons Programme
No date.
UK Weapon Training System, Training Implementation Plan Future Hull, General Dynamics
28 May 2008.
-
Categories:
- General Dynamics
- UK nuclear weapons
- US – UK co-operation
John Ainslie, ‘Notes: Replacing Trident.’
No date.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. More information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.