This is coolbert:
Referring further to the topic of the British submarine ballistic missile firing force. The nuclear option if and when needed.
That article with extract of interest and thanks to Chris Revell.
"Arguments For, Against Renewing Britain’s Submarine Deterrent"
"Should Britain renew Trident or would it be better to adopt a different deterrent posture? Or disarm altogether?"
"At this point Britain could always carry out a Chevaline-esque update,
though based on the experience of this Cold War project it would likely
deliver minor improvement at significant cost."
WHAT EXACTLY WAS/IS CHEVALINE?
"Chevaline (pronounced: Shev-a-leen) was a system to improve the penetrability of the warheads used by the British Polaris nuclear weapons system. Devised as an answer to the improved Soviet anti-ballistic missile defences around Moscow, the system increased the probability that at least one warhead would penetrate Moscow's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defences, something which the Royal Navy's earlier UGM-27 Polaris re-entry vehicles (RV)s were thought to be unlikely to do."
"Chevaline used a variety of penetration aids and decoys to offer so many indistinguishable targets that an opposing ABM system would be overwhelmed attempting to deal with them all, ensuring that enough warheads would get through an ABM defence to be a reasonable deterrent to a first strike. The project was highly secret, and survived in secrecy through four different governments before being revealed in 1980."
AT THIS STAGE THE DISCUSSION AMONG THE ENGLISH MORE ABOUT THE REPLACEMENTS FOR THE CURRENT SSBN FORCE, THE VANGUARD CLASS SUBMARINES. THE SHIPS THEMSELVES IN QUESTION AND THE NOT THE MISSILES OR WARHEADS.
Chevaline a good idea as implemented at the time but not so totally germane to the current debate?