Margaret Thatcher's government secretly considered acquiring chemical weapons amid fears that Britain had no answer to the Soviet Union's vast chemical arsenal, according to newly released official files.
Publicly ministers maintained that they had no plans to restore the UK's chemical warfare (CW) capability which had been voluntarily relinquished in the 1950s.
However, files released by the National Archives at Kew in west London show that, behind the scenes, Mrs Thatcher suggested the government could be considered "negligent" if it did not build its own chemical arsenal.
A Ministry of Defence paper from 1984 underlined the scale of the threat with an assessment that the Russians had more than 300,000 tons of nerve agents alone.
In contrast, the United States - which was the only Nato member to possess a CW capability - had an ageing stockpile of just 31,000 tons which was not actually declared to Nato.
Meanwhile, a Home Office working group calculated that a Russian CW attack by just three aircraft on Gatwick Airport would leave 16,350 dead and 29,000 injured while a similar attack on Southampton dockyard would kill 33,350 and leave 42,000 injured.
A note of a meeting of senior ministers and defence chiefs held on August 8 1984 - marked "SECRET: UK EYES A" - reported a warning by defence secretary Michael Heseltine that the lack of an retaliatory CW capability was a "major gap" in Nato's armoury.
"Reliance on a nuclear response to chemical attack lacked credibility," he warned.
Foreign secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe said public opinion needed to be brought "gently to a better and wider perception of the imbalance between Soviet and Nato capabilities in chemical warfare, while avoiding an upsurge of alarm".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article