Australia’s anti-nuclear movement ready for a big battle.
Anti-nuke campaigners prepare for a new battle, Mark Ludlow and Julie Hare, AFR Sep 16, 2021 ,
Veterans of the protest movement of the 1970s and 1980s are appalled at the Morrison government’s decision to sign up for nuclear-powered submarines, saying it is a slippery slope towards a nuclear energy industry in Australia.
Former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown, who first campaigned against nuclear warships visiting Tasmania in the 1970s, said the Australian public had been blindsided by the move.
Former Greens Leader Bob Brown says there will be a groundswell of opposition to nuclear submarines. Dominic Lorrimer.
“I think it’s very cowardly what the government’s done,” Dr Brown told The Australian Financial Review. “It’s made a decision without reference to the public, knowing the public would oppose it.
“In some ways, nuclear submarines are worse than nuclear power stations because the public gets no say. There has been no public consultation on this announcement.”
The government’s new defence deal with the United States and Britain was announced early on Thursday morning, with nuclear submarines expected to be made in Adelaide in the next 15 to 20 years.
Dr Brown, who was leader of the Australian Greens between 2005 and 2012, said supporters of a nuclear energy industry would use the submarine deal to once again push their cause, especially as Australia moves away from fossil fuels such as coal and gas.
‘There is a big stoush coming’
But he warned environmental and anti-nuclear campaigners would be re-energised by the decision, which would match any battles to fight uranium mining or radioactive waste dumps in the 1980s.
“Australia is not putting its toe in, but jumping into this. There is no dividing line. I think there will be enormous opposition to this. There is a big stoush coming,” he said.
“What are the people of Balmoral in Sydney going to think about nuclear
submarines parking at the bottom of their street? Or, indeed, everybody in Sydney.”
Dr Brown, who fasted for a week in 1976 on top of Mount Wellington in Hobart in protest against the arrival of the nuclear-powered warship USS Enterprise, called on capital cities to ban the new subs from docking.
The Nuclear Disarmament Party was at its most active in the 1980s, rallying against uranium mining and nuclear testing in the Pacific.
The party contested seven federal elections between 1984 and 2007, electing Jo Vallentine as a senator for Western Australia in 1984. (She later defected to the Greens).
It attracted star candidate and Midnight Oil lead singer Peter Garrett in 1984. He polled 9.6 per cent in NSW but was unsuccessful in winning a Senate seat…………
Queensland Conservation Council director Dave Copeman said the nuclear submarine announcement was “trading a bad idea for something worse” and could set a dangerous precedent.
“Australians don’t want nuclear power in Australia. It’s unsafe, expensive, uninsurable and creates radioactive waste that has 10,000-plus-year half-lives,” Mr Copeman said.
“While the Prime Minister said the announcement ‘does not signal a move towards domestic nuclear power’, seriously concerning questions remain, like how and where the radioactive nuclear waste from these submarines will be managed and stored.”
The QCC called on the Palaszczuk government to ban nuclear power and mining in Queensland.
The trilateral deal to build nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide will increase Australia’s risk factor as a terrorist target, could prove to be a slippery slope towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons and will be viewed with hostility by other countries in the region, according to a leading expert on nuclear non-proliferation.
Tilman Ruff, who co-founded the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, said there is a global movement to reduce the amount highly enriched uranium in circulation which, if it falls into the wrong hands, could be repurposed for nuclear weapons.
Dr Ruff, from Melbourne University, said the submarines to be constructed in Australia were based on old technology that was developed in the US in the 1950s and which had been shared with the UK in 1958.
“This is very old technology. The US has undertaken a pretty significant global effort over several administrations to try and reduce the amount of highly enriched uranium in civilian applications around the world,” Dr Ruff said.
Currently, are 174 nuclear ships and submarines in service across the world, he said.
“It has significant implications for Australia. It will be viewed with great hostility and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a sharp rebuke from China and also raised the potential for a significant change in our relationship with New Zealand,” Dr Ruff said.
“But I fear might be a kind of slippery slope towards Australia potentially acquiring nuclear weapons itself.”
He said the best way Australia could clearly and unambiguously signal that it would not go down this path would be to become a signatory to the treaty on prohibition of nuclear weapons. https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/anti-nuke-campaigners-prepare-for-new-battle-20210916-p58s99
Nuclear submarine deal – the start of Morrison’s election campaign
Wrong way, go back on nuclear subs https://www.miragenews.com/wrong-way-go-back-on-nuclear-subs-634420/ 17 Sep 21,
The Greens have slammed the Morrison Government for upping its assault on lutruwita/Tasmania’s oceans and waterways.
As stated by Greens Senator for lutruwita/Tasmania, and Greens spokesperson for Healthy Oceans, Peter Whish-Wilson:
“Make no mistake today’s announcement is the unofficial start of Scott Morrison’s election campaign.
This is clearly sabre-rattling, preparing Australia for a khaki election and designed to be a distraction from the fact this Government is plagued with scandal and corruption.
“Short on detail but deeply concerning in its intent; building nuclear submarines in a new alliance with the US is a major provocation that ups the ante in a regional arms race and makes all Australians less safe. This in particularly risks the health of our oceans and coastal communities.
lutruwita/Tasmania’s oceans have been under constant attack from this Government.
“The last thing we want is dangerous nuclear reactors lurking off our coastlines.
“This is the contempt the Liberals hold for Tasmanian communities: they want to blast our oceans with seismic testing, expand oil and gas drilling in Bass Strait, pollute our waterways with fish farm expansion, and now they want to expose our oceans to floating nuclear reactors.
“The potential for accidents is significant, as has been shown recently with hundreds of safety issues reported in Scotland, and the European Union found that further research was needed on the impact of radiation on oceanic ecosystems resulting from nuclear submarines.
“A nuclear submarine accident off any coastline could spell disaster for the thousands of Tasmanians and Australians whose livelihoods depend on our fisheries and healthy oceans.
“The Greens are a party of peace and non-violence and have a long history of opposing nuclear submarines and nuclear energy projects. We simply won’t let this stand.”
Nuclear good, batteries bad: Morrison’s subs deal is thin edge of wedge
The Coalition’s attitude to batteries has been hostile and ignorant. There’s no reason to believe its consideration of submarine propulsion technology has been any more adult. The post Nuclear good, batteries bad: Morrison’s subs deal is thin edge of wedge appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Nuclear good, batteries bad: Morrison’s subs deal is thin edge of wedge — RenewEconomy https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-good-batteries-bad-morrisons-subs-deal-is-thin-edge-of-wedge/
Dr. Jim Green 17 September 2021 A 2019, a federal government-dominated parliamentary committee released a report on nuclear power titled ‘Not without your approval’. The report emphasised that nuclear power would not be pursued without community support.
But now, the government has secretly decided that Australia will acquire nuclear submarines, with or without your approval, and any consultation will be tokenistic. This is the DAD ‒ Decide, Announce, Defend ‒ approach which is the antithesis of good government.
We only need to go back to the 2016 decision to purchase French-designed submarines to see how poor decisions can be made even when tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars are at stake.
Rex Patrick ‒ a South Australian Senator and former submariner ‒ said: “The main question about @ScottMorrisonMP’s nuclear sub announcement is simple. Why should we expect his ministers and defence bureaucrats to do any better with this deal than their previous procurement disasters? No grounds for confidence there.”
Despite the government’s secrecy and obstinacy, the plan for nuclear subs could easily collapse for any number of reasons including economics (eight nuclear subs will cost north of A$100 billion, and decommissioning and waste management could cost just as much), the availability of comparable or superior options, and public and political opposition.
Alternatives
Because the internal discussions and international negotiations have been secret, we have no way of knowing whether alternative options have been properly considered. These include the options of building fewer submarines (or none at all), and advanced lithium-ion battery technology.
The Coalition’s attitude towards batteries for energy storage has been hostile and ignorant, and there’s no reason to believe that consideration of advanced battery submarine propulsion has been any more adult.
A majority of Coalition MPs support repeal of federal laws banning nuclear power even though it is vastly more expensive than renewables ‒ and significantly more expensive than renewables plus backup stored power.
Put this all together in the mind of defence minister Peter Dutton and it’s a culture war: nuclear good, batteries bad, own the Libs.
Simplistic, ideological thinking appears to go beyond the Coalition culture warriors. I’m told by the author of a book on Australian submarines that “there’s a phenomenon I refer to as “nuclear zealotry” which seems to be alive and well in parts of the Australian submarine community”.
Nuclear power
All countries operating nuclear submarines ‒ the five ‘declared’ weapons states plus India ‒ have both nuclear power and weapons.
Then Defence Minister Christopher Pyne noted that in 2019 that Australia would be the only country in the world with nuclear submarines but no domestic nuclear industry to back them up. Hence the earlier preference for non-nuclear subs.
Building a domestic nuclear industry to support nuclear submarines would be astronomically expensive and problematic in other respects.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison insisted that the nuclear submarine proposal won’t translate into a push for nuclear power plants in Australia. But within hours of the AUKUS announcement, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) called for the repeal of laws banning nuclear power in Australia ‒ laws which might need to be amended to accommodate nuclear subs.
“Now that Australia is acquiring nuclear submarines which use small reactors, there is no reason why Australia should not be considering SMRs [small modular reactors] for civilian use,” the MCA said, adding that SMRs “will provide some of the cheapest zero emission 24/7 power available.”
Even by the standards of the pro-coal, pro-nuclear, anti-renewables MCA, that’s a grotesque lie. Power from SMRs would be far more expensive than that from conventional nuclear ‒ which is far more expensive than renewables.
Hence the paucity of investment in SMRs and the insistence of would-be developers that taxpayers should shoulder the risk.
The far-right culture warriors will argue that it is absurd to pursue submarine reactors but not land-based reactors for power generation. They will argue that it is absurd to pursue military reactors but not civil reactors.
Sane Coalition MPs understand that nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic and a political non-starter. Their patience and resilience will be tested as the nuclear culture wars drag on and on.
Nuclear weapons
Does the government secretly want to bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability via a nuclear submarine program? Does that partly explain why the Morrison government refuses to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and has actively undermined the Treaty at every step? (In the late 1960s, John Gorton’s government actively pursued a nuclear power program and Gorton later acknowledged a hidden weapons agenda. Gorton opposed Australia signing the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)
Nuclear submarines would certainly bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability, whether or not that is part of the plan. At a minimum, staff trained for a nuclear submarine program could later find themselves working on a weapons program.
The northern suburbs of Adelaide would become Australia’s second hub of nuclear expertise along with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s research reactor site south of Sydney. (ANSTO’s predecessor, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, was heavily involved in the push for nuclear weapons in the 1960s.)
Will the Morrison government insist on some degree of technology transfer as part of the submarine negotiations, such that Australia develops some degree of nuclear reactor manufacturing capability? That will be a test of the government’s true intentions, but of course the negotiations will be conducted in secret and the rest of us can only speculate.
Will Australia’s pursuit of nuclear subs encourage other countries to do the same? Will Indonesia take steps to move closer to a nuclear weapons capability as Australia deliberately or inadvertently does the same? If so, Indonesia will likely seek to acquire nuclear subs or nuclear power or both.
Uranium enrichment
Most nuclear subs use highly-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. The use of HEU fuel in nuclear subs is a huge problem, accounting for a majority of the non-weapons use of HEU.
So, will Australia insist on the use of low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel ‒ which is still problematic since it presumes the existence and operation of enrichment plants, but is preferable since LEU cannot be used directly in weapons? If so, what are the implications for submarine performance, reactor lifespan and refuelling requirements, etc.? Or will we contribute to the proliferation of HEU?
There will be another push for uranium enrichment in Australia. In the mid-2000s, then Prime Minister John Howard likened uranium enrichment to value-adding to the wool industry ‒ an absurd comparison since enrichment provides a direct pathway to fissile material for weapons, in the form of HEU.
Australia’s involvement in enrichment R&D began in 1965 with the ‘Whistle Project‘ in the basement of Building 21 at Lucas Heights. Those in the know were supposed to whistle as they walked past Building 21 and say nothing about the enrichment work.
The government claims that the pursuit of nuclear-powered subs won’t undermine the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But a decade ago, Australia colluded with the US to take a sledgehammer to the NPT by allowing nuclear trade with (and uranium sales to) India, a violation of the NPT principle of prohibiting nuclear trade with non-NPT states.
And even if the NPT is not further weakened by the pursuit of nuclear-powered subs, immense damage can be and often is done within the framework of the NPT. The proliferation of HEU is a case in point.
Nuclear waste
The government has been silent about disposal of the high-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by a nuclear submarine program.
No country in the world has a repository for high-level nuclear waste. The only deep underground nuclear waste repository in the world ‒ the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the US, for disposal of long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste ‒ was shut down from 2014 to 2017 following a chemical explosion in a waste barrel, with costs estimated at $2 billion.
Waste from a nuclear submarine program would be dumped on Aboriginal land, as is the case with the federal government’s current plan to dump Australia’s nuclear waste at Kimba in SA despite the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners.
It speaks volumes about the crude racism of the federal and SA Coalition governments that they are prepared to ignore unanimous Aboriginal opposition to a nuclear dump.
The federal government even fought to exclude Traditional Owners from a so-called ‘community survey’. SA Labor’s policy is that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over any proposed nuclear facility including a nuclear waste dump.
The high-level and long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by nuclear submarines would cost many billions of dollars to dispose of, based on cost estimates overseas.
For example, the cost estimate for a high-level nuclear waste repository in France is A$40 billion. The US government estimates that to build a high-level nuclear waste repository and operate it for 150 years would cost A$130 billion.
The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Royal Commission estimated a cost of A$145 billion over 120 years for construction, operation and decommissioning of a high-level nuclear waste repository.
It is highly unlikely that the government has considered these massive long-term costs in its secret deliberations. Submarine decommissioning is also likely to be an expensive and potentially dangerous nightmare for future generations to grapple with.
AUKUS military agreement – bad timing ahead of Glascow Climate Summit.
The timing of the new defence deal between the US, UK and Australia has dismayed climate experts, who fear it could have a negative effect on hopes of a deal with China on greenhouse gas emissions ahead of vital UN climate talks.
The Aukus trilateral security partnership has been interpreted as seeking to counterbalance Chinese power in the Asia-Pacific region, and has been likened to a new cold war by China. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson warned the three countries to “respect regional people’s aspiration and do more that is conducive to regional peace and stability
and development – otherwise they will only end up hurting their own interests”.
Tom Burke, founder of the E3G environmental thinktank, said: “This [Aukus announcement] is bad timing ahead of Cop26, as Glasgow is time-critical and it’s hard to see what was critical about the timing of this announcement. It does not appear to suggest that the prime minister is taking Glasgow very seriously. And it exposes the fact that he has not gotmuch to offer ahead of Glasgow.”
Guardian 16th Sept 2021
A nuclear explosion of taxpayers’ money in the new nuclear submarine plan
A domestic nuclear power industry, as Crikey has reported for so many years, would be inordinately expensive and require massive government funding. But if we’re already spending $120 billion on nuclear subs, why not spend a few tens of billions more? It’s only taxpayer money, which the Coalition appears to regard as a mere plaything.
Nuclear explosion of taxpayer money as Morrison trashes sub policy https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/09/16/nuclear-submarines-morrison-wastes-taxpayer-money/
Having already wasted $2 billion, the government has gone back to square one on a local build of nuclear submarines, likely wasting tens of billions more of taxpayer money. BERNARD KEANE, SEP 16, 2021
It might be designed and sold by the government and the press gallery as an exciting new era of nuclear-powered submarines and a new Anglophone agreement to confront China, but today’s submarine announcement is cover for the most staggering piece of project mismanagement in Australian history, and in our most important portfolio.
The government’s contract with France’s Naval Group for a new generation of submarines has been torn up. Presumably Scott Morrison delivered this news personally to Emmanuel Macron during his lightning visit to the Elysee in June, or he should be prepared for some ferocious blowback from the French.
We’ve already handed $2 billion, plus change (plus ça change, more accurately), to Naval Group for the design phase of the new subs. That’s gone down the drain. It was a tiny down payment on the $90 billion-odd it was going to cost to build the things at Australia’s low-efficiency, small-scale shipyards but it’s not a trifling amount.
Why has the contract failed? Because building a generation of submarines to a highly modified design in Australia was always going to be profoundly difficult, and because the French were naturally eager to build as much of them as possible in France — not just for French jobs, but because they could deliver them more cheaply there.
In the five years since the government announced the contract, that tension has never been resolved.
The whole debacle had its genesis in Liberal leadership tensions: Tony Abbott had the correct idea to purchase the vessels off-the-shelf from overseas — probably Japan — at a considerably lower cost. But his persistently bad polling, especially in South Australia, and the need to shore up the support of South Australian MPs in a coming leadership battle with Malcolm Turnbull, saw him change his mind and plump for building them locally — despite knowing that would add 30-40% to the price.
So, yes, we’ve already wasted billions and will waste many more, all because of an unsuccessful effort by Tony Abbott to save his leadership. Of such things is history made.
There’ll also be a break fee, of course, for tearing up the contract. A figure being touted is $400 million. If Naval Group is happy with such a small sum, that will be very surprising indeed — especially if Morrison blindsided the French, who now join the Japanese in having been dudded by Australia’s village idiot-level defence industry policy.
But even though we’re back to square one five years later, we’re stuck with the problem of politics: Morrison insists what is now being examined is that the new nuclear-powered American submarines will be built locally, meaning exactly the same problems as with Naval Group have just been kicked down the road.
Congressional representatives and senators for Connecticut and Virginia, where the Virginia class boats are currently built, are probably already thinking about making sure as much of Australia’s subs as possible are built there.
And if the cost of the local build under Naval Group was huge, just wait. In 2018 ASPI’s Marcus Hellyer estimated that buying the Virginia class boats off-the-shelf from the US would cost about the same as the Naval Group build — although it would depend to a degree on the Australia-US dollar rate. The Americans could build the boats faster and cheaper, but the subs are much bigger than the ones we were getting from Naval Group (and need much bigger crews, which will be a problem down the track).
But if we’re building them locally, it means, give or take, a 30-40% premium on the off-the-shelf price — meaning we could be looking at a substantial price rise above the $90 billion we were already looking at.
Maybe the Americans will give us mates’ rates. After all, the US boats will help us more effectively play deputy sheriff against China in the Indo-Pacific — except for all the places across the Pacific that nuclear vessels can’t dock. Like New Zealand. Or Hobart.
And this is all before you get to the problem of how the entire concept of whether you can have nuclear-powered submarines without a domestic nuclear power industry has never been tested. Or perhaps, as some pro-nuclear defence analysts have argued, having some nuclear-powered subs is a good backdoor way of introducing a domestic nuclear power industry in Australia.
Morrison insists the subs decision is unrelated to a domestic nuclear power industry. With a backbench clamouring for nuclear power, is he any more believable than normal on this?
A domestic nuclear power industry, as Crikey has reported for so many years, would be inordinately expensive and require massive government funding. But if we’re already spending $120 billion on nuclear subs, why not spend a few tens of billions more? It’s only taxpayer money, which the Coalition appears to regard as a mere plaything.
Minerals Council quick to see nuclear submarines as step to nuclear Australia
The nuclear option: will submarines be a Trojan Horse for reactors? Crikey, KISHOR NAPIER-RAMAN SEP 17, 2021
The PM has said the deal doesn’t mean nuclear reactors for Australia, but many Coalition MPs want the moratorium on nuclear power to end.
Scott Morrison tried to be very clear yesterday: Australia’s nuclear submarines would not be a Trojan Horse for a military or civilian nuclear program. That didn’t stop his announcement making people excited.
Within hours, the Minerals Council of Australia’s CEO Tania Constable called the move “an incredible opportunity for Australia’s economy”. “Now that Australia is acquiring nuclear submarines which use small reactors, there is no reason why Australia should not be considering small modular reactors for civilian use,” she said……. (subscribers only) https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/09/17/will-submarines-be-a-trojan-horse-for-reactors/
Nuclear-powered submarines a ‘terrible decision’ which will make Australia ‘less safe – Australian Greens
Nuclear-powered submarines a ‘terrible decision’ which will make Australia ‘less safe’
Greens leader Adam Bandt has raised concerns over Australia’s acquisition of technology for nuclear-powered submarines from the US and UK, calling it a “terrible decision” which will make “our country less safe”.
While there have been no serious incidences with the UK and US nuclear-powered submarines in their history, Mr Bandt pointed out New Zealand will not allow the nuclear vessels in their waters.
“Australia will be writing a blank cheque, we will be spending untold billions on a fleet of floating Chernobyls,” Mr Bandt told Sky News Australia.
Mr Bandt said Australia was buying “a nuclear reactor in a box” and noted if the US decides to change the technology or withhold support, “we are at their mercy”.
“It’s really concerning the Prime Minister is calling this ‘a forever partnership’, because it means if another Donald Trump comes back in the United States, we are now … a small arm of their nuclear capacity.” https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/nuclearpowered-submarines-a-terrible-decision-which-will-make-australia-less-safe/video/bc91f5690c3
Nuclear-powered submarines have ‘long history of accidents
Nuclear-powered submarines have ‘long history of accidents’, Adelaide environmentalist warns, ABC By Daniel Keane 17 Sept 21,
The plan to build nuclear-powered submarines in South Australia has alarmed anti-war and environmental campaigners, one of whom says the vessels have a “long history” of involvement in accidents across the globe.
Key points:
- Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the nuclear submarines would be built in Adelaide
- The Greens and other environmental groups say that raises serious public safety concerns
- SA’s former nuclear royal commissioner says the risks can be managed
Prime Minister Scott Morrison unveiled a deal to construct the new fleet of at least eight submarines, declaring a new era of strategic alignment with the United States and United Kingdom, and a new trilateral security partnership called AUKUS.
All Australians benefit from the national interest decisions to protect Australians and to keep Australians safe,” Mr Morrison said.
But Friends of the Earth Australia’s anti-nuclear spokesperson Jim Green said the plan was more likely to compromise public safety than enhance it.
I’m worried about the security and proliferation aspects of this, I’m deeply concerned as an Adelaidean. A city of 1.3 million people is not the place to be building nuclear submarines,” he said.
“North-western Adelaide could be a target in the case of warfare. Of course, that’s a very low risk but if it does happen, the impacts would be catastrophic for Adelaide.
“You should build hazardous facilities away from population centres, partly because of the risk of accidents and partly because of the possibility that a nuclear submarine site could be targeted by adversaries.”
Dr Green said the question of what would become of the spent fuel remained unanswered, and there was “a long history of accidents involving nuclear submarines”.
Many — but not all — of those occurred in submarines built in the former Soviet Union, including the infamous K-19, which was subsequently dubbed “The Widowmaker” and became the subject of a Hollywood film.
After its reactor suffered a loss of coolant, members of the crew — more than 20 of whom died in the next two years — worked in highly radioactive steam to prevent a complete meltdown.
Two US naval nuclear submarines — USS Thresher and USS Scorpion — currently remain sitting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, at depths of more than two kilometres, after sinking during the 1960s.
More than 200 mariners died in the disasters, and neither vessels’ reactors, nor the nuclear weapons on board the Scorpion, have ever been recovered.
Two years ago, 14 Russian naval officers were laid to rest after they were killed in a fire on a nuclear-powered submersible in circumstances that were not fully revealed by the Kremlin.
Dr Green said Australia’s “nuclear power lobby” had “been quick off the mark”, and was already using the Prime Minister’s announcement to push for further involvement with the nuclear fuel cycle, including atomic energy and waste storage.
“The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle [Royal] Commission, in its 2016 report, estimated a cost of $145 billion to construct and operate a nuclear waste repository,” he said.
“No country in the world has got a repository to dispose of high-level nuclear waste, and the only repository in the world to dispose of intermediate-level nuclear waste, which is in the United States, was shut for three years from 2014 to 2017 because of a chemical explosion.”…………….https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/nuclear-submarines-prompt-environmental-and-conflict-concern/100470362
The AUKUS deal and nuclear submarine plan ties Australia in to any American engagement against China
This pact ties Australia to any US military engagement against China, https://www.smh.com.au/national/this-pact-ties-australia-to-any-us-military-engagement-against-china-20210916-p58s5k.html
The announced agreement between the United States, Britain and Australia for Australia to move to a fleet of US-supplied nuclear submarines will amount to a lock-in of our military equipment and forces with those of the US, with only one underlying objective: the ability to act collectively in any military engagement by the US against China.
This arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the US would rob Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement it may deem appropriate.
Australia has had great difficulty in running a bunch of locally built conventional submarines. Imagine the difficulty in moving to sophisticated nuclear submarines, their maintenance and operational complexity. And all this at a time when US reliability and resolution around its strategic commitments and military engagements are under question.
If the US military, with all its might, could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47 rifles in pickup trucks, what chance would it have in a full-blown war against China, not only the biggest state in the world but the commander and occupant of the largest land mass in Asia? When it comes to conflict, particularly among great powers, land beats water every time.
It has to be remembered that China is a continental power and the US is a naval power. And that the US supply chain to East Asia would broadly need to span the whole Pacific from its base in San Diego and other places along the American west coast. Australia, by the announced commitments, would find itself hostage to any such a gambit.
There is no doubt about the Liberals: 240 years after we departed from Britain, we are back there with Boris Johnson, trying to find our security in Asia through London. Such is the continual failure of the Liberal Party to have any faith in Australia’s capacity, but, more particularly, its rights to its own independence and freedom of action.
The new AUKUS pact may have paved the way for Iran to move to a nuclear weapon
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s nuclear watchdog, has a safeguards agreement that excludes naval reactors from probes. Simply put, an IAEA inspector can’t be expected to live on a nuke-powered sub for weeks to conduct oversight. As a result, non-nuclear weapons states can declare highly enriched uranium (HEU) for naval propulsion purposes and keep the IAEA from sniffing around that material
For Australia to have nuke-powered subs, it’s likely going to obtain the same HEU used in American and British vessels..
Could AUKUS give Iran a nuclear excuse? https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2021/09/16/could-aukus-give-iran-a-nuclear-excuse-494362, By ALEXANDER WARD and QUINT FORGEY 09/16/2021 ”……………. During a private call with experts, administration officials failed to satisfactorily answer nuclear-related questions about the trilateral pact..
DARYL KIMBALL, director of the Arms Control Association, had serious questions about what providing Canberra with nuclear-propulsion technology for submarines meant for America’s long-standing nonproliferation policy.
Continue readingAustralia’s new nuclear submarines will have dangerous Highly Enriched Uranium, not the Low Enriched Uranium of the French ones.
The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium (civilian power plants are typically fueled with three to five percent uranium-235) in quantities sufficient to last for the lifetime of their ships (33 years for attack submarines).Having resisted domestic efforts to minimize the use of HEU and convert their naval reactors to LEU fuel, the United States and UK have no alternative fuel to offer. France, on the other hand, now runs naval reactors fueled with LEU. The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.
Until now, it was the US commitment to nonproliferation that relentlessly crushed or greatly limited these aspirations toward nuclear-powered submarine technology. With the new AUKUS decision, we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards.
It is difficult to understand the internal policy process that led the Democratic Biden administration to the AUKUS submarine announcement. It seems that just like in the old Cold War, arms racing and the search for short-term strategic advantage is now bipartisan.
The new Australia, UK, and US nuclear submarine announcement: a terrible decision for the nonproliferation regime https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-nuclear-submarine-announcement-a-terrible-decision-for-the-nonproliferation-regime/
By Sébastien Philippe | September 17, 2021 On September 15, US President Joe Biden, United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison launched a new major strategic partnership to meet the “imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term.” Named AUKUS, the partnership was announced together with a bombshell decision: The United States and UK will transfer naval nuclear-propulsion technology to Australia. Such a decision is a fundamental policy reversal for the United States, which has in the past spared no effort to thwart the transfer of naval reactor technology by other countries, except for its World War II partner, the United Kingdom. Even France—whose “contract of the century” to sell 12 conventional submarines to Australia was shot down by PM Morrison during the AUKUS announcement—had been repeatedly refused US naval reactor technology during the Cold War. If not reversed one way or another, the AUKUS decision could have major implications for the nonproliferation regime.
In the 1980s, the United States prevented France and the UK from selling nuclear attack submarines to Canada. The main argument centered on the danger of nuclear proliferation associated with the naval nuclear fuel cycle. Indeed, the nonproliferation treaty has a well-known loophole: non-nuclear weapon states can remove fissile materials from international control for use in non-weapon military applications, specifically to fuel nuclear submarine reactors. These reactors require a significant amount of uranium to operate. Moreover, to make them as compact as possible, most countries operate their naval reactors with nuclear-weapon-usable highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel.
With tons of weapons-grade uranium out of international safeguards, what could go wrong?
The United States, UK, and Australia are giving themselves 18 months to hammer out the details of the arrangement. This will include figuring out what type of submarine, reactors, and uranium fuel will be required. Similarly, questions about where to base the submarines, what new infrastructure will be needed, how maintenance will be conducted, how nuclear fuel will be handled, and how crews will be trained—among many others—will need to be answered.
Australia has no civilian nuclear power infrastructure beyond a 20 megawatt-thermal research reactor and faces a rough nuclear learning curve. It will need to strengthen its nuclear safety authority so it has the capability to conduct, review, and validate safety assessments for naval reactors that are complex and difficult to commission.
How long this new nuclear endeavor will take and how much it will cost are anyone’s guesses. But the cancelled $90 billion (Australian) “contract of the century” with France for conventionally powered attack submarines will most likely feel like a cheap bargain in retrospect. Beyond these technical details, the AUKUS partnership will also have to bend over backwards to fulfill prior international nonproliferation commitments and prevent the new precedent created by the Australian deal from proliferating out of control around the world.
The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium (civilian power plants are typically fueled with three to five percent uranium-235) in quantities sufficient to last for the lifetime of their ships (33 years for attack submarines).Having resisted domestic efforts to minimize the use of HEU and convert their naval reactors to LEU fuel, the United States and UK have no alternative fuel to offer. France, on the other hand, now runs naval reactors fueled with LEU. The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.
So Australia is likely to receive HEU technology, unless an LEU crash program is launched that could take more than a decade to complete or in a dramatic reversal, France is pulled back into a deal—two scenarios that remain unlikely at this point and at any rate do not solve all proliferation concerns. Assuming the high-enrichment route is followed, if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU. It has none on hand and no domestic capacity to enrich uranium. So unless it kickstarts an enrichment program for military purposes, the material would need to come from the United States or the UK.
One can only imagine the drops of sweat trickling down the neck of the International Atomic Energy Agency leadership in Vienna when an Australian delegation comes knocking at its door bringing the good news. The agency, which is currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information. Managing that feat while keeping its credibility intact will be difficult to pull off.
What could happen if AUKUS moves forward? France clearly feels “backstabbed” by its Anglo-Saxon allies and angered to the unimaginable point of cancelling a gala celebrating the 240th anniversary of the Revolutionary War Battle of the Capes during America’s war of independence. In response, the French could relax their position on not transferring naval reactor technology to Brazil as part of helping the country build its first nuclear attack submarine. South Korea just successfully launched a ballistic missile from a conventional submarine and recently floated the idea of starting a nuclear submarine program in response to growing nuclear threats from North Korea. Seoul could now ask the United States or other nations for an arrangement similar to Australia’s.
Russia could begin new naval reactor cooperation with China to boost China’s submarine capabilities in response to the AUKUS announcement. India and Pakistan, which already have nuclear weapons, could benefit from international transfers as well, possibly from France and China respectively. Iran, of course, has already expressed interest in enriching uranium to HEU levels to pursue a submarine program.
Until now, it was the US commitment to nonproliferation that relentlessly crushed or greatly limited these aspirations toward nuclear-powered submarine technology. With the new AUKUS decision, we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards.
Domestic political opposition to the nuclear submarine deal is already brewing in Australia. The Green Party has announced that it will fight the deal “tooth and nail.” Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister Morrison is very much struggling in the polls and could lose next year’s election—before the end of the 18-month review process announced by AUKUS. The nuclear submarine project could then be buried before it takes off, saving the international community further headaches.
But if Morrison gets re-elected and the program continues, it will be for the United Stated to take up its responsibilities as the guardian of the nonproliferation regime. Poor nuclear arms control and nonproliferation decisions—such as leaving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and approving the US-Indian nuclear deal—have so far been a trademark of the US Republican Party. It is difficult to understand the internal policy process that led the Democratic Biden administration to the AUKUS submarine announcement. It seems that just like in the old Cold War, arms racing and the search for short-term strategic advantage is now bipartisan.
New Zealand PM says Australian nuclear subs will NOT be welcome in country’s waters
New Zealand PM says Australian nuclear subs will NOT be welcome in country’s waters, https://7news.com.au/politics/federal-politics/australian-nuclear-subs-not-welcome-in-nz-c-3978704 7 News, Ben McKay, 16/09/20
Australia’s planned nuclear submarine fleet won’t be welcome in New Zealand, according to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
The new submarines are the centrepiece of the new AUKUS security tie-up of Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom.
NZ has been left out of the AUKUS alliance, despite being a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, along with AUKUS members and Canada.
The country has been staunchly nuclear-free for decades, earning the ire of treaty partner US by declining visits from its nuclear-powered ships.
“We weren’t approached by nor would I expect us to be,” Ardern said.
“Prime Minister Morrison and indeed all partners are very well versed and understand our position on nuclear-powered vessels and also nuclear weapons.
Australia’s planned nuclear submarine fleet won’t be welcome in New Zealand, according to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
The new submarines are the centrepiece of the new AUKUS security tie-up of Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom.
NZ has been left out of the AUKUS alliance, despite being a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, along with AUKUS members and Canada.
The country has been staunchly nuclear-free for decades, earning the ire of treaty partner US by declining visits from its nuclear-powered ships.
“We weren’t approached by nor would I expect us to be,” Ardern said.
“Prime Minister Morrison and indeed all partners are very well versed and understand our position on nuclear-powered vessels and also nuclear weapons.
That of course means that they well understood our likely position on the establishment of nuclear-powered submarines and their use in the region.”
Ardern said by law, and by a consensus of NZ’s major political parties, nuclear-powered vessels would not be welcome.
“Certainly they couldn’t come into our internal waters,” she said.
Ardern declined to say whether it would be appropriate for Australia’s new fleet to sail in the Pacific but welcomed interest from the US and the UK in the “contested region”.
“I am pleased to see that the eye is being tuned to our region, from partners that we work closely with.”
Some Kiwi experts believe the AUKUS formation shows an Australian acquiescence to US foreign policy.
“It highlights that much deeper level of Australian integration into US defence and security planning and thinking,” Victoria University professor David Capie told The Guardian.
“New Zealand and Australia were in a different space to begin with and this has perhaps just made that look sharper again.”
Ardern said the new alliance “in no way changes our security and intelligence ties with these three countries”.
NZ’s opposition is less sure, with leader Judith Collins saying other aspects of the defence alliance would be worth involvement.
”No need to relax the ban on nuclear energy ”- Scott Morrison
There’s no need to do that’: Prime Minister rejects calls for nuclear power in Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has quashed the hopes of Australian nuclear energy advocates, despite agreeing to a new nuclear-powered submarine deal with the Unites States.Sky News 17 Sep 21
Australia contains a third of the world’s uranium, but the Prime Minister told Ben Fordham “there’s no reason for Australia to need to” relax the ban on nuclear energy.
The reactors powering the new submarines will be built overseas and imported.
“This doesn’t require the development of Australia’s civil nuclear capability.
“Australia has capability here – we don’t come to this new – but in terms of going ahead with a civil nuclear capability, that is not something that is linked to this decision.” https://www.2gb.com/theres-no-need-to-do-that-prime-minister-rejects-calls-for-nuclear-power-in-australia/
US President Joe Biden appears to forget Scott Morrison’s name (it doesn’t really matter)
(ED. Biden only wants to sell USA nuclear stuff to any willing buyer. Poor old #ScottyFromMarketing just wants a bit of military glory, leading upm to the Australian election)
US President Joe Biden appears to forget Scott Morrison’s name in embarrassing blunder, Aamer Madhani and Jonathan Lemire, AAP/7NEWS : Thursday, 16 September 2021
“”…………Thank you Boris, and I want to thank that fellow Down Under,” Biden said.“Thank you very much, pal! Appreciate it, Mr Prime MinisterAttempting to backtrack, Biden quickly addressed the PM by his name – but unfortunately for Joe, the damage was done …. https://7news.com.au/politics/joe-biden/biden-hails-new-aukus-defence-pact-c-3977425
France angry at Australia’s cancellation of submarine pact
France vents subs anger with recall of Australian, US envoys, AFR Hans van Leeuwen, Europe correspondent Sep 18, 2021 –London | France has issued a diplomatic slap in the face to Canberra and Washington, recalling its ambassadors to vent its displeasure at the cancellation of Australia’s $90 billion submarine contract with state-controlled defence company Naval Group.
The move signals a potentially serious rupture in Franco-Australian relations, after Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian publicly described Australia’s switch to a maritime security pact with the US and Britain as “a stab in the back”.
This exceptional decision is justified by the exceptional gravity of the announcements made on September 15 by Australia and the United States,” Mr Le Drian said in a statement on Friday (Saturday AEST).
“The cancellation of the Attack class submarine program binding Australia and France since 2016, and the announcement of a new partnership with the United States meant to launch studies on a possible future cooperation on nuclear-powered submarines, constitute unacceptable behaviour between allies and partners.”
Mr Le Drian said the “consequences directly affect the vision we have of our alliances, of our partnerships and of the importance of the Indo-Pacific for Europe”………
Although Australia’s French embassy has issued a statement arguing that the decision was made purely on technical grounds, the French government and commentariat has interpreted it as a political decision – and it will potentially rankle for years to come…… https://www.afr.com/world/europe/france-vents-subs-anger-with-recall-of-us-australian-envoys-20210918-p58srz
1.This month.
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 