Antinuclear

Johnson’s ‘nuclear fantasy’ will not reduce rising fuel bills or rising temperatures- UK’s Nuclear Free Local Authorities

Johnson’s ‘nuclear fantasy’ will not reduce rising fuel bills or rising temperatures

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are ‘incredulous’ that Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the UK Government remains wedded to a new Energy Security Strategy that will rely in large part upon the development of 24 GW of new nuclear generation capacity to power Britain, when a plan involving mass investment in renewables and a reduction in electricity demand through retrofitting the nation’s homes with insulation would have been far cheaper and quicker to deliver.

In response to the government’s commitment to build the equivalent of eight new large nuclear power stations by 2050, NFLA National Chair, Councillor David Blackburn said:

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are ‘incredulous’ that Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the UK Government remains wedded to a new Energy Security Strategy that will rely in large part upon the development of 24 GW of new nuclear generation capacity to power Britain, when a plan involving mass investment in renewables and a reduction in electricity demand through retrofitting the nation’s homes with insulation would have been far cheaper and quicker to deliver.

“It defies common sense that the current government is turning to a technology that is too slow to install, too costly to build, remains risky to operate and vulnerable to military and terrorist attack, and leaves a toxic legacy of radioactive waste that has to be safely stored for 100,000 years.”

“In the past, we were told that nuclear-generated electricity would be too cheap to meter customers for. The reality is very different.  The plan means building eight power plants the size of Hinkley Point C within 30 years.  Hinkley Point C is already costing £23 billion and is years behind schedule, with operator EDF about to announce a further hike in the cost and a further delay in delivery.”

“Nuclear power projects are notorious for being delivered way behind schedule and massively over cost. British taxpayers will end up being saddled with this extra cost as the government has just passed the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act making them liable for the charges.”

All of the plants will rely on a massive subsidy from the British taxpayer and ultimately the taxpayer will also pick up the bill for decommissioning the new plants at their end of their operating lives and for managing and storing the resultant radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years.

In addition to increasing energy bills and being delivered far too late to make a favourable impact in the fight against climate change, Boris Johnson’s ‘big bet’ on nuclear will not improve the nation’s energy independence.

Added Councillor Blackburn:  “Nuclear power plants rely on uranium all of which is sourced overseas, with Russia being a major supplier to the world market, and most of the plants will be reliant on foreign reactor designs, one with a dubious safety record, and built and run by foreign-owned operators.

“EDF Energy, the main player, is a company owned by the French state, and newer players to the market are American owned, including one involving billionaire entrepreneur, Elon Musk. The only UK business, Rolls Royce, which is developing the so-called Small Modular Reactor, is backed by French private money and funding from a Qatari sovereignty fund.

“The NFLA cannot see how nuclear in any way promotes Britain’s energy independence.”

The NFLA is therefore bitterly disappointed that the new strategy did not instead commit to a national programme of retrofitting insulation to Britain’s homes and to providing further funding to support domestic electricity micro-generation, both of which would have reduced energy demand and reduced customers’ fuel bills, as well as to a far greater investment in a range of renewables to generate power, particularly onshore wind projects and tidal power which remain largely neglected despite their huge potential and public support.

“We advocate an emergency national programme of retrofitting homes with insulation to reduce heating bills and energy demand, and to improve public health; a greater emphasis of new and existing homes generating their own power for domestic use; and a huge public investment in a range of renewable technologies to provide domestically-generated, reliable, sustainable electricity. This can be done much more quickly and much more cheaply than continuing to indulge in this nuclear fantasy,” concluded Councillor Blackburn.

In response to the government’s commitment to build the equivalent of eight new large nuclear power stations by 2050, NFLA National Chair, Councillor David Blackburn said: 

April 12, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Protect Indigenous people’s rights or Paris climate goals will fail, says report – The Guardian — Barbara Crane Navarro

Protect Indigenous people’s rights or Paris climate goals will fail, says report – The Guardian https://ift.tt/duKo9Xx Protect Indigenous people’s rights or Paris climate goals will fail, says report  The Guardian Superforest via “deforestation” – Google News https://ift.tt/7JTrnhP Protect Indigenous people’s rights or Paris climate goals will fail, says report – The Guardian —

Protect Indigenous people’s rights or Paris climate goals will fail, says report – The Guardian — Barbara Crane Navarro

April 12, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

April 11 Energy News — geoharvey

Science and Technology: ¶ “NREL Researchers Plot Energy Storage Under Our Feet” • US National Renewable Energy Laboratory scientists have been researching the use of depleted oil and gas wells as reservoirs for storing compressed natural gas. The wells can subsequently be used to hold other gases, such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or hydrogen, to […]

April 11 Energy News — geoharvey

April 12, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

This week in nuclear news

 Some bits of good news .     Why the latest UN climate report is positive news .    New research shows planting trees and shrubs brings woodland birds back to farms, from superb fairy wrens to spotted pardalotes .    Climate change: greener lifestyles linked to greater happiness – in both rich and poor countries.  Annual bird count in UK gardens raises hopes for greenfinch .

Pandemic. It’s not as if the coronavirus has gone away – new sub-variants etc…

Climate. It’s not as if global heating has gone away.

Nuclear. While the Ukraine warseems to consume nearly all the news, there is a swamping of UK nuclear news at present. The mainstream media can be depended on for its usual regurgitation of handouts from the nuclear lobby, masquerading as news. All the same, there’s a surprising flow of information, even from conservative sources, warning that Boris Johnson”s nuclear energy dream looks like turning into a nightmare  –  useless against climate change, increasing the toxic waste problem, of dubious safety. and – shock horror – unaffordable.

AUSTRALIA.

FAST TRACK TO ARMAGEDDON — Declassified Australia. AUKUS hypersonic announcement will ‘escalate global tensions’, warns CND. AUKUS in the hypersonic missile wonderland. Australia’s contribution to global nuclear risks. Defence Dept blocks access to advice on location choice for Australia’s nuclear submarines base.       Small nuclear reactors for Australia– a sneaky way to lead to making Australia the world’s nuclear waste dump?

New cyclotron for Australia – to produce medical isotopes, with no need for dangerous nuclear reactor production. Why medical isotopes produced in cyclotrons are so much better than those produced in a nuclear reactor.

Conservation Council of Western Australia continues its long fight for the environment, and to stop uranium mining.

Angus Taylor’s latest intervention – renewables funding could be redirected to fossil fuels and nuclear.

The other half of the climate change debate – adaptation.

Federal budget: $160 million for nature may deliver only pork and a fudge,         Climate reality bursts PM’s election campaign bubble. Time’s up: why Australia has to quit stalling and wean itself off fossil fuels

High school student stands against Environment Minister in federal seat. The Greens: We’re eager to hold the balance of power

Latest IPCC report offers key lessons for Australia but is anyone listening?       Why renewables are key to Australia’s national security 

Stockton residents want solutions as waves whipped up by east coast lows erode their beach

Wittenoom is officially closed, but can it be cleaned up?

INTERNATIONAL

The choices: fight to the last Ukrainian, or choose Macron’s dialogue path.    In the midst of war in Ukraine, U.S. and NATO must de-escalate.       Questions Abound About Bucha Massacre.

Pundits Who Advocate Hot War With Russia Are Enemies Of Humanity.  World leaders must look to peaceful solutions, not more weapons. Who speaks for the world? — IPPNW peace and health blogl      Ukraine is ground zero for the expansion of the U.S.-Russia proxy war, (and the war industry is jubilant).   Nuclear missiles, bombs market to surge 73% by 2030, report says, industry worried that international treaties ”might hamper growth”.     ‘Most Dangerous Point in Human History’ Looming, Warns Noam Chomsky.

NATO is punishing China               U.S., NATO push Asia-Pacific bloc against Russia, China, with Ukraine as pretext.
Shortening the kill chain: nuclear-capable U.S. B-52s integrate with NATO Eastern flank states

Protecting the environment to reduce the risk of another pandemic

IPCC ‘s dire warning on climate change is being ignored, amid war and economic turmoil. IPCC new report coming, on limiting global heating. World on ‘fast track to climate disaster’, says UN secretary general – video
 We can still avert climate catastrophe – but there is barely time.

Almost everyone now breathing polluted air, warns WHO

Greenpeace maps Ukraine’s nuclear power risks. Zaporizhzhia is a wake-up call demonstrating the vulnerability of nuclear plants to deliberate acts of war.     Why Ukraine’s Nuclear Waste Is A Major Threat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r88prlEbtmg&t=33s

ANTARCTICA. New research links Antarctic ice loss to greenhouse gas emissions,

UKRAINE. Ending Ukraine’s suffering. The decision to negotiate this is up to Ukraine, not the USA.      Ukraine planning to resume control of Chernobyl nuclear site, as Russians withdraw.

Ukraine: Russian troops took Radioactive ‘souvenirs’ from Chernobyl, says agency Russian soldiers in Chernobyl ‘picked up radioactive material with barehands’ and contaminated inside of plant.  Over 70 Russian soldiers suffering from radiation exposure at Chernobyl nuclear site.

Greenpeace maps Ukraine’s nuclear power risks. Zaporizhzhia is a wake-up call demonstrating the vulnerability of nuclear plants to deliberate acts of war.     Why Ukraine’s Nuclear Waste Is A Major Threat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r88prlEbtmg&t=33s

Weapons, weapons and more weapons: Ukrainian FM welcomed at NATO headquarters

April 11, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A $50 billion (bottomless?) pit? Four public interest groups demand review of production of nuclear weapons ”pits”

DOE’s and NNSA’s pit production plan would involve extensive processing, handling, and transportation of extremely hazardous and radioactive materials, and presents a real and imminent harm to the plaintiffs and to the frontline communities around the production sites.

The government estimates that the cleanup will take until about 2060, Kelley said. “And at Site 300, some contamination will remain there in perpetuity—parts of Site 300 are essentially a sacrifice.” Such contamination is present at all U.S. nuclear weapons sites, “and at some of the big production sites, the contamination is even worse.”

Nuclear weapons monitors demand environmental review of new bomb production plans https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3943195911 By Marilyn Bechtel. 10 Apr 22,

Four public interest groups monitoring the nation’s nuclear weapons development sites are demanding the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Agency conduct a thorough environmental review of their plans to produce large quantities of a new type of nuclear bomb core, or plutonium pit, at sites in New Mexico and South Carolina.

The organizations, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, Savannah River Site Watch, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, and Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition, filed suit in late June 2021 to compel the agencies to conduct the review as required under the National Environmental Policy Act. They are now fighting an effort by DOE and NNSA to dismiss the suit over the plaintiffs’ alleged lack of standing. The groups are represented by the nonprofit South Carolina Environmental Law Project.

In 2018, during the Trump administration, the federal government called for producing at least 80 of the newly designed pits per year by 2030.

The public interest groups launched their suit after repeated efforts starting in 2019 to assure that DOE and NNSA would carry out their obligations to issue a thorough nationwide programmatic environmental impact statement, or PEIS, to produce the new plutonium pits at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

The organizations said that in correspondence with NNSA in March, the agency stated that it did not plan to review pit production, relying instead on a decade-old PEIS and a separate review limited to the Savannah River Site.

Although more will be known when the Biden administration completes the Nuclear Posture Review now underway, the administration’s request for $43.2 billion in fiscal 2022 to maintain and modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and individual items to expand U.S. capabilities including pit production, very much follows the Trump administration’s spending patterns. The proposed nuclear weapons spending comes to nearly 6 percent of the $753 billion the current administration is asking for national defense, itself a total marginally higher than under Trump.

April 11, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In the midst of war in Ukraine, U.S. and NATO must de-escalate

 https://www.nj.com/opinion/2022/04/in-the-midst-of-war-in-ukraine-us-and-nato-must-de-escalate-l-opinion.html Apr. 09, 2022 By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist

Robert Moore

Since invading Ukraine on Feb. 24, President Putin has put Russian nuclear forces on high alert and issued warnings to other nations that if they interfere with the Russian invasion they risk “consequences such as they have never seen in their history.” The Russians also elevated the nuclear risk by saying that Russia has a “right” to use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict in response to conventional weapon threats or an “existential threat” to Russia.

What makes Russia’s threat especially dangerous is that it has been made in the context of ongoing warfare. Even if this threat were meant solely to intimidate, the fog of war sharply increases the chances of nuclear war through inadvertent escalation, miscalculation or accident.

It is therefore imperative that the U.S. and NATO de-escalate NOW to prevent the war in Ukraine from escalating into a nuclear war. I advocate for two near-term steps toward that end.

First, the U.S., France and the United Kingdom should publicly issue No First Use of Nuclear Weapons pledges. This multilateral declaration would make clear that the policy and nuclear weapon posture of the nuclear weapon nations within NATO is to never initiate the use of nuclear weapons. The only time such doomsday weapons would be used by them is if they were under nuclear attack.

This has the potential to dramatically transform the current escalatory dynamic. Instead of nuclear saber-rattling, the three nuclear nations in NATO would join the only other nuclear power that has a No First Use policy, China, in eschewing initiating the use of nuclear weapons.

Second, NATO should stop deploying nuclear weapons in NATO countries that aren’t nuclear weapon states. Currently, there are an estimated 100 nuclear weapons at U.S. Air Force Bases in five non-nuclear NATO countries. These are superfluous to the thousands deployed by the U.S., France and the U.K.

For the medium term, the U.S. should re-enter the Iran Nuclear Agreement that President Trump withdrew from in 2018. As a result of that withdrawal, Iran is very close to having enough nuclear weapon-grade material to assemble a nuclear bomb. Negotiations are reportedly very near the finish line.

https://fb3b3df81ca53751b5e2a5981eb7a5a6.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Other Nuclear Arms Control Treaties the U.S. could re-enter include the ABM Treaty George W. Bush withdrew from and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which Trump also withdrew the U.S. from — that was the first-ever nuclear reduction treaty in 1987 and banned an entire class of nuclear weapons. The U.S. could also take leadership for a follow-up to the New START Nuclear Reduction Treaty to seek deeper reductions.

Ultimately, the U.S. needs to take leadership to move forward on the groundbreaking work of the UN’s Nuclear Ban Treaty, supported by a large majority of UN members. Moving toward the global abolition of nuclear weapons is the only sure way to guarantee that the world’s people won’t face the risk of extinction.

I’ve been a leader in the U.S. anti-nuclear weapons movement for 44 years. When I began, our goal was to reverse the rapidly escalating nuclear arms race. The active engagement of millions in the U.S. and across the world resulted in a reversal and an over 80% reduction in global nuclear arsenals.

If enough citizens again engage in sustained anti-nuclear activism, we can make the world safe from the danger of nuclear weapons use, now in Ukraine, and for all future generations.

The Rev. Robert Moore is executive director of the Princeton-based Coalition for Peace Action.

April 10, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Emmanuel Macron Gets Nuclear Energy All Wrong

The price of nuclear generation today is inordinate: a rip-off in terms of value, to put it bluntly. Indeed, while safety concerns drive up the cost of nuclear plant insurance, the price of renewables is predicted to sink further, by as much as 50 percent or more by 2030. ……No nuclear reactors anywhere are built without enormous government support, and France will be no different: The bill for the French taxpayers will start at $57 billion, according to the New York Times.

The single greatest barrier to the so-called nuclear renaissance is nuclear power itself and its inability to deliver affordable power on time and on budget.

Nuclear power won’t help France meet its climate goals on budget or on time.

 https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/22/macron-france-nuclear-energy-climate-renewables/ By Paul Hockenos, a Berlin-based journalist. 22  Mar 22,  At year’s end, Germany will shutter its last three nuclear plants; Belgium will follow suit by 2025. France, on the other hand, is committed to remaining Europe’s last stronghold of nuclear energy. At the center of French President Emmanuel Macron’s re-election platform is his plan to construct as many as 14 new-generation reactors and a fleet of smaller nuclear plants, supposedly to bolster the country’s climate protection strategy.

France’s bet on nuclear energy, however, is an egregious miscalculation that will severely inhibit its decarbonization efforts. At a critical juncture in the battle against climate change, diverting any finances and losing time with nuclear power, which has been in decline worldwide for decades, will only set back the country’s climate efforts, perhaps dooming its chances to go carbon neutral by 2050. Indeed, this Hail Mary pass, taken out of desperation as France has fallen woefully behind on its climate targets, will most probably come to naught anyway as the era of nuclear power wanes further no matter France’s declarations. 

The simple explanation: Fully fledged renewables are faster, cheaper, and lower risk than nuclear power.

Despite the flurry of media hype around new nuclear energy and loose talk of a “nuclear renaissance,” in recent years, the arguments against nuclear power have grown demonstrably stronger.

Critics’ original concern with nuclear power, namely its safety, remains levelheaded and paramount. The two most catastrophic meltdowns—namely in 1986 at Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear power plant and in 2011 at Japan’s Fukushima site—are well known and had horrific repercussions that haunt those regions today. But these mega disasters are only the blockbusters. 

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there have been 33 serious incidents at nuclear power stations worldwide since 1952—two in France, and six of them in the United States. Currently, a fifth of France’s geriatric nuclear generation is shut down because of safety issues—the older reactors get, the higher the risk of an accident—exacerbating an acute energy crunch there. So much for the 24/7 reliability of nuclear power.

And then there’s the now 80-year-old conundrum of how and where to dispose of radioactive waste. To date, no secure repositories are in operation anywhere in the world for the spent fuel, which remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Experts estimate that more than 250,000 metric tons of radioactive waste—over 14,000 metric tons in France and 90,000 metric tons in the United States—is currently in temporary storage near nuclear power plants and military production facilities worldwide.

In France and elsewhere, there’s broad agreement that for security and health reasons, highly radioactive material can’t simply be lodged interminably at interim sites. But France’s wish to one day entomb its toxic refuse 500 meters below the Earth’s surface and 186 miles east of Paris is still on hold as locals refuse to accept the presence of a long-term nuclear repository near their homes. The story is the same just about everywhere: No one wants to raise families near a nuclear waste dump.

But these days, there are other arguments against nuclear energy that are arguably even more averse to a nuclear revival than the issues of safety and nuclear waste.

Nuclear power plants have actually pulled off one of the most remarkable feats of recent technological history: Where virtually all other technologies have gotten cheaper over time as they have developed and matured, nuclear power has actually become more expensive. Indeed, it has grown dauntingly costly compared with renewables: at least four times as costly as utility-scale solar and onshore wind power. While the cost of solar and wind energy generation, as well as battery storage, plummets by the year—in 2020 alone, onshore wind costs declined by 13 percent and those of utility-scale solar photovoltaics by 7 percent—the bill for new nuclear sites climbs upward.

The price of nuclear generation today is inordinate: a rip-off in terms of value, to put it bluntly. Indeed, while safety concerns drive up the cost of nuclear plant insurance, the price of renewables is predicted to sink further, by as much as 50 percent or more by 2030. This price trend is one reason why in 2020 total investment in new renewable electricity surpassed $300 billion, 17 times global investment in nuclear power, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report. No nuclear reactors anywhere are built without enormous government support, and France will be no different: The bill for the French taxpayers will start at $57 billion, according to the New York Times.

This yawning price differential means renewables generate many more times the electricity per dollar invested than does nuclear—and thus decreases emissions by a greater factor.

The single greatest barrier to the so-called nuclear renaissance is nuclear power itself and its inability to deliver affordable power on time and on budget. If Europe’s current headline nuclear projects are a measure—marred for decades now by massive cost overruns and protracted delays—France’s hopes to have its first new reactor up and running by 2035 are illusory. In Flamanville in northwest France, the French energy firm EDF is struggling to finish a reactor that is a full decade behind schedule and now roughly four times above cost projections. The Olkiluoto 3 reactors in Finland, also many times over budget, have been delayed again and again since the early 2000s.

Indeed, not one reactor conceived since 2000 in the European Union has generated even a kilowatt of energy. The Olkiluoto 3 plant may begin commercial activities this year. As for the new, smaller, presumably cheaper nuclear reactors envisioned by billionaire Bill Gates among others, not one is in operation anywhere in the world.

In a widely circulated Jan. 25 letter penned by four former top nuclear energy regulators in France, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, the authors excoriated the viability of relying on nuclear energy to beat climate change: Nuclear energy, they argue, “is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design.”

The fact is that nuclear power is simply too cumbersome to really play a meaningful role in tackling climate change—in France or elsewhere. We don’t have that kind of time. Indeed, there is no way countries can meet their 2030 decarbonization goals agreed to at the Paris Agreement by embarking now on nuclear power programs.

In stark contrast, renewable energy is a sprinter: Farms can be licensed, financed, and deployed much faster because they’re smaller, less capital intensive, more quickly approved, and easier to build. Depending on the country, vast utility-scale solar fields and onshore wind farms can materialize in just a handful of years. Last year, China brought to life about 50 gigawatts of solar capacity—that’s as much electricity generation as 10 nuclear reactors. Even the average nine-year schedule of offshore wind parks is still much, much shorter than nuclear’s erratic, extended timelines.

In Europe and elsewhere, building out nuclear power will greatly hamper the effort to curb climate change, not help it. “The more urgent climate change is, the more we must invest judiciously, not indiscriminately,” writes sustainability expert Amory Lovins, “to buy cheap, fast, sure options instead of costly, slow, speculative ones.”

In the end, the evidence speaks conclusively for ramping down fossil fuels and nuclear energy as fast as possible while embarking on an all-out expansion of sustainable renewables: wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tidal/wave energy. Modern gas works will back up this clean energy model until green hydrogen can take over. Ever better energy storage, smart grids, energy conservation, and digital management will make this model of the future work.

Germany and Belgium—like Austria, Italy, and nine other EU countries—are looking the facts straight in the eye. By swearing off nuclear energy and fossil fuels at the same time, these countries will have the best chance at making a net-zero energy system functional by 2050, at the latest.  https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/22/macron-france-nuclear-energy-climate-renewables/

Paul Hockenos is a Berlin-based journalist. His recent book is Berlin Calling: A Story of Anarchy, Music, the Wall and the Birth of the New Berlin (The New Press).   

April 10, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Ukraine’s Nuclear Waste Is A Major Threat:

Why Ukraine’s Nuclear Waste Is A Major Threat: Nuclear plants in Ukraine
aren’t at risk for a Chernobyl-style meltdown, but destabilizing the kind
of waste stored at Chernobyl and Ukraine’s four other nuclear plants
could create a widespread environmental disaster.

 Business Insider 9th April 2022

April 10, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Greens: We’re eager to hold the balance of power

The Greens: We’re eager to hold the balance of power

As the major political parties try to play the underdog in the May 21 election, the Greens appear confident they will hold the balance of power after polling day.

April 10, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

April 10 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion:  ¶ “Britain Was Promised A Bold And Visionary Energy Plan. But We’ve Been Sold A Dud” • The double threat of climate crisis and war requires an urgent response. The government supplied its energy security strategy, which includes eye-catching headlines, especially on expanding nuclear power. But it fails on immediate, pressing problems. [The Guardian] […]

April 10 Energy News — geoharvey

April 10, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

FAST TRACK TO ARMAGEDDON — Declassified Australia

Despite Australia’s headlong rush to splash cash on new advanced military weapons, there is some confusion apparent within the highest levels of the Defence Department as to the real strategic effect of the development and use of hypersonic missiles. 

The use of hypersonic missiles trashes conventional reluctance to be the first to start a war as it removes the perceived threat of retaliation.

Hypersonic missiles will allow for a pre-emptive war if the nation possessing them thinks an enemy state is moving towards conflict. The Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, window for avoiding war is slamming shut.

Australia’s hypersonic missile development, rather than promoting peace in the region, is helping ignite an arms race and increasing the chance of conflict. Hypersonic missiles being developed in Australia are aircraft-launched highly-maneuverable high-speed precision cruise missiles, capable of delivering a conventional, and potentially a nuclear payload. PETER CRONAU, 8 APRIL 2022   Australia is already a long way down the track in developing nuclear-capable hypersonic weapons with the US and UK, despite a new announcement this week by the Australia-UK-USA ‘AUKUS’ military pact.

FAST TRACK TO ARMAGEDDON — Declassified Australia

AUKUS member nations this week, in an update to their much-reported pact of 2021, announced $1-billion for guided missile development in Australia, and stated: ‘We…committed today to commence new trilateral cooperation on hypersonics and counter-hypersonics’.

Last November Declassified Australia first reported on the work being done with the US and UK on the development of hypersonic missiles in Australia for the Australian Defence Force, in a story on the expanding military and intelligence links between the AUKUS trio of nations. 

Some of the largest arms manufacturers in the world have been working in Australia in developing hypersonic missile prototypes under the Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment, or SCIFiRE.

The SCIFiRE project was signed in 2020 by world’s largest weapons-maker and manufacturer of the RAAF’s F-35, Lockheed Martin, along with Boeing Defence Systems, manufacturer of the RAAF’s F/A-18 Hornets. These private companies reap the benefits of the publicly-funded HIFiRE scramjet engine technology of 2007 designed by a team at the University of Queensland.

The SCIFiRE hypersonic missile is a high-speed highly-maneuverable plane-launched precision cruise missile that gives a fighter or bomber aircraft a virtually unstoppable anti-shipping capability from over 400 km distance – and much further when used from planes launched off carriers or airbases. They could be nuclear-capable, but at present will be conventionally armed.

The hypersonic missile is light and fast, and will seriously outperform the Tomahawk cruise missiles already on order for the RAAF. The SCIFiRE doesn’t need a bomber to launch and will be carried by RAAF fighter aircraft such as the F/A-18F Super Hornet jetfighter, the new F-35A Lightning II air-combat stealth fighter, as well as the P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft. They will be perfect for supporting a US war in the South China Sea.

The US has been testing its domestically-produced HARC hypersonic ramjet weapons and, though troubled by a string of failures, has reportedly tested the Lockheed Martin prototype last month. The new Australian SCIFiRE hypersonic missiles offers better prospects for delivery and are expected to enter service in 5-8 years, ready to join in the plunge over the precipice of a predicted 2030 US war with China

Not to be outdone, Britain’s BAE Systems since 2021 has been developing in Australia a hypersonic weapons system titled Project Javelin. The project involves a hypersonic long-range attack missile named ‘Javelin Strike’, and also, sensibly, defensive counter-measures to protect against high speed weapons named ‘Javelin Shield’. The project is running in parallel with the SCIFiRE missile, in developing a so-called ‘sovereign capability’ for the construction of the weapons in Australia.

Of even greater concern internationally is the potential development of nuclear-armed drone satellites, able to fire multitudes of hypersonic nuclear missiles upon any part of the globe. The US has for a decade been working on a highly secret X-37B Boeing space drone project capable of carrying satellites, as well as nuclear payloads. Now Boeing is presently building the Phantom Express, a hypersonic Experimental Spaceplane XS-1, able to carry payloads with ‘military and commercial applications’.

Such madness may not be too remote from Australia. A Brisbane-based aerospace engineering start-up company Hypersonix Launch Systems, working with the public-funded University of Southern Queensland, has last month received federal government funds for development of its DART CMP Airframe, the world’s first ‘reusable’ hypersonic drone. 

Hypersonix is building the airframe of the hypersonic drone, capable of speeds up to 15,000 km/hr, supported by US companies Boeing, and Kratos Defence Security Solutions, which are both separately developing hypersonic drones with military applications.

‘New age’ hypersonic missiles and drones are not the only airborne weapons cooperation occurring between nations of the AUKUS pact. RAAF’s Woomera Test Range in South Australia has been the site of BAE Systems long-delayed development work on its Taranis supersonic stealth bomber drone.

The Defence Department is very serious about arming Australia with hypersonic missiles. In 2020 Defence allocated $9.3-billion for high-speed long-range strike and missile defence including for hypersonic development, test and evaluation. This is part of the eye-watering $270-billion spend on defence capability over the decade under the Force Structure Plan 2020, a part of Australia’s legitimate defence needs, as well as support to military actions of the US empire.

The use of two hypersonic missiles by Russia against Ukraine military targets in March seemed to take the US by surprise. The US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, publicly downplayed the development, saying he did ‘not see it as a gamechanger.’ 

But have no doubt, the sphincters of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and European military leaders tightened several notches as they realised the Russians had just used in battle a missile for which they have no present defence. Instantly, US military bases, like those in Germany or the NSA satellite surveillance post at Menwith Hill in the UK, were undefendable.

The Russian Kinzal ‘Dagger’ hypersonic air-to-surface missile reportedly has a range of 2,000 kms and can reach speeds of 12,000 km/hr. The missiles were fired from Mig-31 fighters outside of Ukraine airspace hitting one target in the far west of Ukraine near the border with Poland, a NATO member. As well as destroying the Ukraine military arms depot and fuel storage, the ‘Dagger’ missiles also destroyed the West’s sense of invulnerability.

Russian President Putin said development of the hypersonic missiles was permitted following the US decision in 2002 to abandon the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a bilateral agreement between the Soviet Union and US. China also has developed hypersonic weapons after first testing its Wu-14 missile in 2014.

The need for international controls and a return to adherence to the abandoned mutual containment system by all countries has suddenly become very apparent.

Despite Australia’s headlong rush to splash cash on new advanced military weapons, there is some confusion apparent within the highest levels of the Defence Department as to the real strategic effect of the development and use of hypersonic missiles. 

A statement by the Australian Defence Minister at the time, Linda Reynolds, when speaking about hypersonic weapons for Australia illustrates the confusion: ‘Investing in capabilities that deter actions against Australia also benefits our region, our allies and our security partners.’

The utilisation of hypersonic missile technology has been described as ‘disruptive capability’ – and disruptive it surely is. Far short of ‘deterring’ other nations, as the minister suggests, hypersonic weapons may increase uncertainty and hence the likelihood of conflict. They are already contributing to a regional arms race with Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, USA and China all presently expanding missile development.

The use of hypersonic missiles trashes conventional reluctance to be the first to start a war as it removes the perceived threat of retaliation. Hypersonic missiles which can travel as fast as eight-times the speed of sound, greatly reduce the chance of the targeted nation retaliating, as the warning time reduces dramatically. The first warning now might be the sounds of missile explosions. 

At present an uneasy peace between nuclear nations exists, with the belief an enemy would not start a war due to the likely retaliation that would follow any first attack launch. The hypersonic capability allows nations to launch with a much reduced fear of interception or retaliation.

Hypersonic missiles will allow for a pre-emptive war if the nation possessing them thinks an enemy state is moving towards conflict. The Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, window for avoiding war is slamming shut.

“We remain committed to peace and stability in the region,’ said the Defence Minister. These words indicate a view far from a reality of the increased risk of hypersonic-propelled destructive conflict and a newly-energised regional arms race. 

PETER CRONAU is co-founder of DECLASSIFIED AUSTRALIA, and is a multi-award winning investigative journalist, writer, and film-maker. He is co-editor of the recent book A Secret Australia – Revealed by the WikiLeaks Exposés. 

April 9, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment