$90 Billion Nuclear Powered Subs To Bring Australia Out Of Lockdown In Time For Christmas
$90 Billion Nuclear Powered Subs To Bring Australia Out Of Lockdown In Time For Christmas, https://www.betootaadvocate.com/breaking-news/90-billion-nuclear-powered-subs-to-bring-australia-out-of-lockdown-in-time-for-christmas/LOUIS BURKE |.
Locked down Australians are getting ready to say a big hello to freedom as $90 billion worth of nuclear powered submarines are coming to our nation girt by sea.
During a teleconference that many mistook for the worst episode of Gogglebox yet, US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and our very own Scotty from Marketing announced they had formed a new security partnership called AUKUS with the first item of business to set Australia up with $90 billion worth of nuclear powered submarine freedom.
Despite the fact the three nations recorded a total of 317,060 new cases between them on Monday alone, the three world leaders really put their heads together and decided what their constituents really needed was to splash out big on some top-secret subs.
“I’m actually really excited for them!” said one local weirdo who, thankfully, does not live near any schools.
“Oh no, you’re not one of those anti-nuclear guys are you? Seriously? In 2021? I blame Chernobyl. The show.”
According to Scotty, this historic new alliance is great news for freedom loving Australians as we partner closer with the most hated nation on Earth and a country led by a man who literally cannot count the amount of illegitimate children he has.
When asked if the USA were a good military ally based on very recent events, Scotty was quick to remind our reporting team that we should be out of lockdown in time for Christmas.
“It’s all about perspective,” stated Scotty, as he thumbed through a sample book of the best submarine photo-ops.
“Christmas is coming and Santa is riding in on a nuclear sub pulled by water-breathing reindeer and in his big red sack is a present for you; family.”
Nuclear submarines may never eventuate; it’s just Scott Morrison’s giant new election ploy
The timing of Mr Morrison’s announcements also merits some consideration. In our view, this project is a political stunt aimed to distract from Covid failures, please coalition constituencies, and split the Labor Party and render the Greens shrill and sidelined.
In reality, it is likely that after a passage of years of staged announcements and pseudo-planning there will be little to show for it, and the enormously expensive, strategically ill-considered, and force-structure distorting project will quietly die.
But, to use Prime Minister Morrison’s phrase, “let us be clear,” in terms of Australian security, it is a gigantic nuclear election stunt that in the long run may increase the risk of nuclear war while drawing Chinese return fire on our vulnerable export sectors, including iron ore.
“To be clear” again, it is utterly mendacious of Prime Minister Scott Morrison to say that these forces have nothing to do with nuclear weapons because Australian submarines won’t be so armed, assuming it does not cross that barrier in the future if the submarines ever come to pass. As noted above, they may play a crucial role in US nuclear strike and defence operations……..
Scott Morrison’s Giant Nuclear Election Ploy, APLN Asial Pacific Leadership Network. 19 Sep 21,
Even leaving aside the fiscal profligacy and defence opportunity costs for Australia of the literal blank cheque issued by the Morrison government, the nuclear submarine decision takes Australia into the heart of naval warfighting in East Asia and Southeast Asia.
Further, the Australian nuclear submarine decision will have knock-on effects in Japan and the Republic of Korea, leading them not only to move their already highly capable submarine fleets to nuclear power, but also thereby heighten the likelihood they will then equip those submarines with nuclear weapons.
For several decades the US has been concerned to negate two military advances the Chinese regard as essential protection against literally existential threats. The Australian submarines will be designed primarily to contribute to negating both of those military advances.
Continue readingWe need a full and transparent Inquiry into the nuclear submarine deal
But the uncertainties are huge. We don’t know whether it’s proposed to acquire a US or a British submarine. We don’t know how many might be constructed. We don’t know the cost, although we know it’s going to be huge. We don’t know the delivery schedule, though it’s been suggested the first boat won’t be completed until 2040 and not operational for several years after that.
Putting the schedule into perspective, by the time Australia’s first nuclear submarine goes into the water, Aussies will have voted in at least seven federal elections. Scott Morrison will be 72 years old, Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be 76 and President Joe Biden will be a venerable 98.
Nuclear-level spin masks a massive failure, https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2021/09/17/nuclear-level-spin-masks-a-massive-failure/
This week’s nuclear submarine announcement raises questions that need full and transparent examination. What is certain, writes Rex Patrick, is that the Federal Government’s atomic marketing efforts are designed to cover a huge mess of its own making.
In many respects Scott Morrison’s nuclear submarines announcement fits the Prime Minister’s standard modus operandi.
Having presided over a huge shambles, he’s always ready to pull down the curtain and then present something new and shiny to the electorate as a distraction to the failure.
In this case, however, he’s taken his marketing strategy to a new atomic level.
I’ve been a strong critic of the French submarine deal. The projected delays and cost overruns, jointly the fault of Defence and Naval Group, were huge and unacceptable. The Government managed to achieve Australia’s worst-ever defence procurement disaster – which is saying a lot.
Although they repeatedly refused to admit it, and fought tooth and nail to prevent the release of information about the problems with the Future Submarine Program, the Government knew they had a total lemon on their hands – a lemon of their own making.
To deal with the strategic possibility of conflict with China, the Government contracted the French to redesign one of their nuclear submarines to create a completely new long-range diesel-electric submarine. That was always going to be fraught with difficulty, with inevitable cost and time overruns.
It wasn’t Australia’s changing strategic circumstances that have driven a shift to the US/UK nuclear submarine option – that was already factored into the French program – it was complete project disarray.
The PM’s atomic marketing is intended to mask the Government’s own mess.
The distant and uncertain future
We now have to be very careful not to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
I don’t underestimate the significance of the joint announcement of a new strategic and defence technology partnership between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. It’s a big commitment with long term national security, geopolitical, and economic consequences.
But the uncertainties are huge. We don’t know whether it’s proposed to acquire a US or a British submarine. We don’t know how many might be constructed. We don’t know the cost, although we know it’s going to be huge. We don’t know the delivery schedule, though it’s been suggested the first boat won’t be completed until 2040 and not operational for several years after that.
Putting the schedule into perspective, by the time Australia’s first nuclear submarine goes into the water, Aussies will have voted in at least seven federal elections. Scott Morrison will be 72 years old, Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be 76 and President Joe Biden will be a venerable 98.
And by 2040, the first of the Collins-class submarines, HMAS Collins, will have been operating for 44 years. The Royal Australian Navy will be trying to stretch out the life of the Collins-class subs far beyond what was ever intended.
At least the Government has finally decided to end the nonsense of shifting Collins-class full-cycle dockings from South Australia to Western Australia. We’re going to have to preserve and nurture all the submarine expertise we have to keep the Collins boats ticking over. The risk of a major capability gap is significant.
The nuclear question
The PM says the new nuclear-powered vessels will be built in Adelaide. It is unclear whether this would involve manufacturing or just assembly of pre-manufactured modules supplied from the US or UK.
If it’s the latter, this would have a huge impact on the extent of technology transfer and the shipbuilding workforce in Adelaide. The Australian local manufacturing content for nuclear boats is certainly likely to be much lower.
If the project proceeds there will be operating nuclear reactors sitting on hard-stands at Osborne and moored in the Port River.
Acquiring, operating and maintaining a nuclear submarine fleet without a domestic nuclear power industry is a challenge that must not be underestimated. The nuclear safety and non-proliferation safeguards issues are unquestionably complex and likely to be controversial.
This decision will likely reignite debate over nuclear power options for Australia. It can’t be said there is much political consensus about that.
There are many significant issues that will need to be properly considered and I fear that they haven’t yet. The proposed initial US-UK-Australia joint study to be undertaken over the next 18 months will take place after Australia’s election. But that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be rigorous and wide-ranging scrutiny of the Government’s decision now.
I am going to press for the Senate to open an immediate inquiry to ensure that all the angles, including alternative conventionally-powered submarine procurement options, are fully explored and understood.
We need such an inquiry to inform Government, Opposition, the Parliament and, most importantly, the Australian people before the next election.
This is a huge decision taken in response to a Liberal Party own goal which has cost the taxpayer and national security dearly. We don’t want an even bigger repeat of a failure and this massive project should not proceed further without full transparency and scrutiny.
Rex Patrick, a former submariner, is an independent senator for South Australia.
Australia to lease nuclear submarines from USA, UK?
Dutton may consider leasing nuclear subs, Canberra Times, Colin Brinsden 19 Sept
The federal government is prepared to lease nuclear submarines from the US while its own fleet is being built, Defence Minister Peter Dutton says. Last week, Australia entered into a surprise regional security pact with the US and the UK, known as AUKUS, which includes building US nuclear submarines but these will not be ready until the late 2030s.
Asked on Sky News’ Sunday Agenda program whether the government would consider leasing nuclear submarines in the interim, Mr Dutton said: “The short answer is yes”.
“There is all of that discussion to take place in the next 12 to 18 months,” he said………
The technology used by Britain and the US means the reactor does not need to be refuelled for the life of the submarine – about 35 years.
“Therefore, we don’t need a domestic industry around nuclear,” Mr Dutton said.
“That is a game changer for the Labor party and we wanted to make sure that this was a bi-partisan effort.”
While Labor backs the government’s decision, one of its frontbenchers, Ed Husic, said it is typical of the coalition that as soon as events start to unravel, they try to shift responsibility to someone else. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7436344/dutton-may-consider-leasing-nuclear-subs/
How much will Australia’s nuclear submarines cost the taxpayer?
How much does a nuclear submarine cost?
Jessica YunFri, 17 September 2021 Is the new ‘AUKUS’ alliance to build Australia a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines battles growing criticism, a key question has emerged: how much do nuclear submarines actually cost?Before we get to that, what’s a nuclear submarine? It’s not considered a nuclear weapon, first of all. It all comes down to how it’s powered; a nuclear submarine works from its own miniature nuclear reactor, whereas conventional submarines use diesel-electric engines.In terms of how much they’ll cost, not even the Federal Finance Minister knows.
“Finalisation of those costs is something that will be assessed in [that] 12-18 month process we’re now embarking on with the UK and the US,” Finance Minister Simon Birmingham told ABC Radio National when asked about how much building the submarines would cost.
“The Prime Minister has acknowledged that it will likely cost more than what we had assessed for the conventionally powered submarines.”
Before the new AUKUS deal, Australia had a $90 billion contract with France to build 12 conventional submarines. To make way for the new defence pact, that deal has now been scrapped.
Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has taken aim at the question marks around what this will cost Australian taxpayers.
“We know there are contracts in place already that will be breached. And we know there will be substantial compensation costs payable,” Albanese said. These ‘walk-away’ costs are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions.
“And Australian taxpayers are entitled to know, given that under this Government they began with arrangements with Japan, then arrangements with France, and now we have these arrangements with the United States and potentially the UK as well.”
What DO we know about the nuclear submarine deal and the costs so far?
T he new ‘AUKUS’ partnership will see Australia acquire a fleet of “at least eight” nuclear-powered submarines to “protect our national security interests” and “work with our partners across the region to achieve the stability and security of our region”, in Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s words………the new AUKUS deal means that we’ve torn up a $90 billion contract with France’s Naval Group to build 12 “Attack class” submarines, infuriating France along the way.
How much nuclear submarines cost around the world
The US Navy’s latest submarine model, the Virgina-class submarine, claims to have the latest tech in stealth, intelligence gathering and weapons system tech.
According to documents prepared for the US Congress, procuring a Virgina-class submarine is estimated to cost US$3.45 billion, or AU$4.73 billion, per boat.
Australia doesn’t currently have a domestic nuclear industry. SA Senator Rex Patrick told Yahoo Finance he expects each submarine will cost at least $5 billion to build.
Australian National University research fellow and nuclear science expert AJ Mitchell said there would be an “eye-watering cost” to constructing these high-tech watercrafts.
“Each nuclear submarine typically costs several billion dollars to build, and requires a highly skilled workforce with expertise in nuclear science,” Mitchell wrote in a new piece for The Conversation……… https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/how-much-nuclear-submarine-cost-022130602.html
Big questions remain about Australia’s nuclear submarines, but it’s a massive financial gain for nuclear corporations
The possibility of a submarine deal with Australia came at an opportune moment. It provided Biden with a chance to demonstrate support for a close ally and boost its military strength. For Boris Johnson it could show that
relations with the US had not fallen apart because of the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, and it validated claims that the UK can play a prominent security role in the Indo-Pacific region.
For Australians it provides reassurance that it is still backed by its oldest allies. Having abandoned a “forever war”, the US and UK have signed up to what the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, has described as a “forever
partnership”. The test will lie in this submarine project being more successful than the French-backed one it has replaced. This is not something that can be taken for granted.
The big questions about the boats’ design and manufacture will not be answered until 2023. The value
of the contract will be massive, and we should expect the competing claims of all three partners to be pressed hard when they are deciding their contributions. Instead of building diesel-powered submarines with the French, Australia upgraded its requirement to nuclear-powered submarines. These are quieter, can spend more time at sea and can travel greater distances, but they are fiendishly difficult to construct. Although the UK’s Astute-class programme is now running reasonably smoothly, with each boat costing almost £1.5 billion, the first vessel was almost five years
late and massively over budget.
Times 19th Sept 2021
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-submarine-deal-is-a-real-downer-for-china-x6t89v022
Malaysia and Indonesia warn Australia’s Indo-Pacific pact could trigger nuclear arms race
Malaysia and Indonesia warn Australia’s Indo-Pacific pact could trigger nuclear arms race, Taipei Times, 19 Sep 21
The new AUKUS alliance will involve Australia, the US and Britain exchanging technology and intelligence
Australia will have access to US nuclear technology, which will enable it to build nuclear submarines
Australia’s nuclear arms ban remains in new deal
Birmingham said there was no “quid pro quo” in Australia agreeing to step up its strategic relationship with the UK and the US.
He insisted that nuclear weapons would not be based within Australia’s jurisdiction. “We’ve been clear, Australia’s position in relation to nuclear weapons does not change, will not change,” he said yesterday.
“We will meet all of our non-proliferation treaty arrangements and obligations and not be changing any of our policies in relation to the nuclear weapons technology.”
Birmingham did not rule out an increase in the number of UK and US military personnel on Australian shores. “We already have US troops and marines who work in Australia on rotational deployments at times,” he said………….
it is not just the French who have been made uneasy by the AUKUS arrangement, which is still to be worked out in detail. Australia’s allies in the Indo-Pacific have also raised concerns over what the deal will mean for tensions in the region.
Malaysia said on Saturday that Canberra’s decision to build atomic-powered submarines could trigger a regional nuclear arms race, echoing concerns already raised by Beijing.
“It will provoke other powers to also act more aggressively in the region, especially in the South China Sea,” the Malaysian prime minister’s office said, without mentioning China……https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2021/09/20/2003764684
China fears that the nuclear-powered submarines could be armed with nuclear weapons at short notice
US FORCES US submarine launches Trident II nuclear missiles in stunning show of strength U.S,Sun Olivia Burke, Sep 19 2021
THE US Navy triumphantly test-launched Trident D5LE nuclear missiles on Friday in a stunning show of strength.
The scheduled two-missile deployment of the unarmed revamped weapon took place off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida from the USS Wyoming (SSBN-742) submarine……
The Navy boasted of the “unmatched reliability” of the new “sea-based nuclear deterrent” as tensions continue to increase with China.
It was the 184th successful Trident II (D5 & D5LE) SWS missile test flight and follows the last launch in February this year off the coast of Florida……..
“This same team is now developing the next generation of the Trident Strategic Weapon System, which will extend our sea-based strategic deterrent through 2084,”
The Navy also revealed the submarine missiles have been given “a life extension program to address potential impacts from aging and obsolescence”.
They are now primed to be stationed amongst the rest of the fleet alongside the UK Vanguard-class, US Colombia-class, UK Dreadnought-class.
With an estimated annual cost of $170million, the US spend a whopping $2.4million each year to run the Ohio-class submarines.
….the launch comes in the wake of the revelation of the UK’s and US’ plans to build nuclear-powered submarines for Australia.
AUKUS’ ALLIANCE
The alliance has angered China, who fear the subs could be armed at short notice with nukes, despite assurances they will only carry conventional weapons.
The countries leaders carefully navigated the announcement without directly mentioning China’s imposing power – but hinted at their intentions behind the move by discussing “democracy, freedom of navigation, and security.”
The new Indo-Pacific security pact, known as AUKUS, will give the land Down Under the technology to deploy nuclear-powered submarines.
It is part of an agreement intended to counter China’s rising military might – that they have splashed six times more cash on than Australia.
With 42 times more soldiers, 55 times more tanks, 13 times more submarines and 16 times more fighter jets, they eclipse the Aussies artillery.
And with 3.3 million troops in service, Beijing dwarves Australia’s 80,000 soldiers – but AUKUS has still managed to seriously ruffle some feathers.
CHINA’S FURY
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian condemned the alliance as “seriously damaging regional peace and stability, intensifying the arms race, and undermining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”.
China is believed to have between 250 and 350 nuclear weapons, compared to America’s colossal arsenal of 5,800 and Russia’s total of 6,375. ……. https://www.the-sun.com/news/3691458/us-submarine-trident-ii-nuclear-missiles-chinas-threats/
Nuclear submarines and their disadvantages
The US Virginia-class submarines typically use highly enriched uranium (HEU) that does not need replacing during the lifecycle of each submarine. Across the world, the US, Britain, Russia and India are the only countries to use HEU in naval reactors. Other countries like France use high-density, low-enriched uranium that will occasionally require swapping out with a replacement source.
HEU is one of the most dangerous metals on earth and also one of the simplest nuclear materials to work with. These twin traits also make it a security risk over fears rogue states or terrorists might develop a nuclear weapon, or mishaps trigger a serious accident. It is also why it has been targeted under non-proliferation treaties to reduce its use.
What are nuclear-powered submarines, anyway? A guide to Australia’s looming military addition,Guardian, Royce Kurmelovs. @RoyceRk2T, hu 16 Sep 2021
What are they and what design might Australia get?
It is not clear which submarine the Australian government will obtain, but the US navy’s latest design is the Virginia-class submarine. Manufactured by American aerospace and defence company General Dynamics, this submarine has gone through several iterations but is generally powered by a single nuclear reactor and can travel at more than 25 knots. Its crew includes 15 officers and 117 enlisted personnel, and the subs are used both in anti-submarine warfare and intelligence gathering operations.
The vessel is powered by a 210MW pressurised water nuclear reactor, inside of which the enriched uranium fuel is sealed. The reactor does not have to be refuelled over its 30-year lifespan …………..
What are the drawbacks of nuclear?
Because nuclear submarines tend to be larger, one downside is they can’t move into shallow waters, making them more easily detectable. During one war game in 2015, a Russian-built, Kilo-class diesel-powered submarine used by the Indian navy “sank” a US nuclear-powered sub – although the US navy has never acknowledged the sinking.
Traditionally Australia’s diesel-powered submarines are thought to have been complementary to US powered nuclear subs used by the US, making the recent announcement a surprise.
Nuclear submarines are also more complicated to maintain and service. Unlike the US and UK, Australia does not have a domestic nuclear power industry, which could provide a highly skilled workforce of engineers and nuclear physicists. Much of the work on the subs will probably have to be done overseas.
It is also not clear what plans are being made to handle the spent uranium. The Australian government has been working to build a controversial nuclear waste storage facility in Kimba in South Australia, but this proposal has so far been limited to low-level and intermediate waste from 100 sites around the country.
Are nuclear subs quieter?
It depends. Diesel-electric subs are quieter while running in electric mode, but must at some point surface or pop up a snorkel to run their diesel engines and recharge the batteries. When the diesel engines are running, these noisier than nuclear-powered subs. Nuclear subs also generate noise from the reactor, including the coolant pipes, turbines and steam generation.
What fuel do they use?
The US Virginia-class submarines typically use highly enriched uranium (HEU) that does not need replacing during the lifecycle of each submarine. Across the world, the US, Britain, Russia and India are the only countries to use HEU in naval reactors. Other countries like France use high-density, low-enriched uranium that will occasionally require swapping out with a replacement source.
HEU is one of the most dangerous metals on earth and also one of the simplest nuclear materials to work with. These twin traits also make it a security risk over fears rogue states or terrorists might develop a nuclear weapon, or mishaps trigger a serious accident. It is also why it has been targeted under non-proliferation treaties to reduce its use.
Will it be able to launch nukes?
If there is one thing the Australian government has been very clear about, it’s that the subs will not be armed with nuclear weapons and that Australia is not seeking to obtain nuclear weapons capability.
That’s not to say the submarine won’t be capable of doing so. Using the Virginia-class as an example, the build comes equipped with 12 vertical missile launch tubes and four 533mm torpedo tubes. It is capable of launching 16 Tomahawk cruise missiles in one salvo but can be modified to mount heavier weapons systems. While these missiles could potentially be built to carry a nuclear warhead, as of 2019 the only variations of the Tomahawk missile in operation were non-nuclear.
What happens when things go wrong?
Serving on a naval submarine has not always been a pleasant experience. For example, German U-boat crews in the second world war suffered devastating losses and many were killed not just in combat but from catastrophic mechanical failures, including asphyxiation from diesel exhaust or explosive decompression after flushing a toilet.When it comes to nuclear subs, radiation adds a new dimension, although there have been no known reactor meltdowns in the sinkings that have occurred to date.
The most recent nuclear sub disaster involved the Russian Kursk, which sank after a faulty weld on a torpedo caused an explosion that then detonated other torpedos. All of the 118 crew members died. Many were instantly killed in the initial blasts, although failsafes in the nuclear reactor shut it down without incident. The 23 sailors who survived the blasts spent six hours awaiting a rescue that did not come, and were killed in a desperate attempt to create oxygen. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/what-are-nuclear-powered-submarines-anyway-a-guide-to-australias-looming-military-addition
Nuclear submarine deal planned for 18 months – French ambassador says this is treasonous
Recalled French ambassador accuses Australia of ‘treason in the making’ https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/recalled-french-ambassador-accuses-australia-of-treason-in-the-making-20210918-p58ssg.html. By Anthony Galloway
France’s recalled ambassador to Australia has likened Canberra’s actions to treason after the Morrison government dumped a $90 billion submarine contract with Paris and instead decided to build nuclear-powered submarines with the United States and Britain.
France on Saturday has taken the extraordinary step of recalling its ambassadors from Australia and the US, as the fallout grows from a new defence pact that has infuriated French President Emmanuel Macron.
Speaking to The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age hours before he was recalled, France’s ambassador to Australia, Jean-Pierre Thebault, did not rule out suspending talks to allow French troops greater access to Australian military bases after his nation was “stabbed in the back”.
Adding insult to the process… we have very reliable reports from the independent press, which I thank, about the fact that all this was in the making for 18 months. Which means we have been blind-sided intentionally for 18 months…. The crime was prepared for 18 months,” he said.
France’s recalled ambassador to Australia has likened Canberra’s actions to treason after the Morrison government dumped a $90 billion submarine contract with Paris and instead decided to build nuclear-powered submarines with the United States and Britain.
France on Saturday has taken the extraordinary step of recalling its ambassadors from Australia and the US, as the fallout grows from a new defence pact that has infuriated French President Emmanuel Macron.
Speaking to The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age hours before he was recalled, France’s ambassador to Australia, Jean-Pierre Thebault, did not rule out suspending talks to allow French troops greater access to Australian military bases after his nation was “stabbed in the back”.
“Adding insult to the process… we have very reliable reports from the independent press, which I thank, about the fact that all this was in the making for 18 months. Which means we have been blind-sided intentionally for 18 months…. The crime was prepared for 18 months,” he said.
He slammed Australia for allowing a meeting to go ahead between Mr Dutton and Foreign Minister Marise Payne late last month with their French counterparts where they spoke about enhancing defence ties between the two countries.
“It is us, through letters that were sent by the President [Macron] some months ago to the Prime Minister [Scott Morrison], who proposed to look at more ambitious and new ambitious cooperations,” Mr Thebault said……….. The extraordinary move follows the Morrison government’s decision to tear up a $90 billion contract to buy 12 French submarines in favour of a new nuclear-powered fleet using technology from the US and United Kingdom under a new partnership called AUKUS.
Review of book: Long Half-life – The Nuclear Industry in Australia
Lowe highlights that there is a neglected dimension of uranium mining — its inefficiency. Lowe notes that at Ranger it would take 400 tonnes of ore to extract one tonne of uranium yellowcake. At 125,000 tonnes of production, that’s a lot of detritus, which highlights what a giant job is the “remediation” project currently underway at Ranger.
The replacement went ahead, called an Australia’s Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) reactor, built by an Argentinian company. Work began in 2002 and it was commissioned in 2006. A condition for its approval was that the waste problem would be solved. Of course, it wasn’t. Which makes the approval and construction of the OPAL reactor unconscionable.
IA Book Club: Long Half-life – The Nuclear Industry in Australia https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/ia-book-club-long-half-life–the-nuclear-industry-in-australia,15520#.YUbL77Fpoi8.twitter By Evan Jones | 19 September 2021 In his far-reaching review, Dr Evan Jones explores a book by Ian Lowe, which looks deep into Australia’s involvement with the nuclear industry.
Lowe has written a telling obituary for the nuclear industry in Australia, but the waste problem refuses to die. Long Half-life: The Nuclear Industry in Australia’ is available from Booktopia for $28.35 (paperback) RRP.
PHYSICIST Ian Lowe has just published another book, Long Half-life: The Nuclear Industry in Australia. Current generations might say — what nuclear industry? They would probably know about the British nuclear bomb tests on Australian soil (buzz words Woomera and Maralinga); perhaps fragments regarding the export of uranium yellowcake.
Australia has been integrally involved with nuclear since the atom bomb — indeed, before the bomb, as Adelaide-born Marcus Oliphant was a key figure in fostering and furthering the bomb’s development.
Lowe’s book conveniently ties all the threads together. Lowe has been intimately involved in the issue for over 50 years. The book usefully outlines in simple terms for outsiders (of which myself) the technical mysteries of splitting the atom and related discoveries. The book is soberly written, with occasional displays of outrage (John Howard “crass” and Alexander Downer “bumbling and sycophantic” in playing the U.S.’ deputy sheriff) and not a little wry humour.
The immediate consequence of the bomb in Australia was the creation of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in March 1949, due to concerns of “reds under the beds”. The Cold War was on in earnest.
Continue readingAnger grows over Australia’s submarine deal
Anger grows over Australia’s submarine deal https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/anger-grows-over-australias-submarine-deal/news-story/2c14a4b514a7e24768696242428e6498
It’s not just the French who are angry about Australia’s submarine deal with the US and UK. Now, the outrage is closer to home.
When news broke that the US and UK will help Australia build nuclear-powered submarines by sharing their technology and knowledge, the French were furious. But they’re not the only ones.
As part of the new trilateral security agreement – known as AUKUS – the submarine deal will allow for the design and construction process to be sped up. It will help ensure the West maintains it’s edge in combat under water.
As part of the new trilateral security agreement – known as AUKUS – the submarine deal will allow for the design and construction process to be sped up. It will help ensure the West maintains it’s edge in combat under water.
Australia’s decision to tear up a deal for the French submarines in favour of US nuclear-powered vessels sparked outrage in France, with President Emmanuel Macron recalling the nation’s ambassadors to Canberra and Washington in an unprecedented move.
There’s also anger brewing from China, with Beijing describing the new alliance as an “extremely irresponsible” threat to regional stability. China has also quenstioned Australia’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, warning the Western allies that they risked “shooting themselves in the foot”.
Closer to home, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has warned Scott Morrison to keep the nuclear submarines away from her country’s waters, CNN reports. New Zealand has been a nuclear-free zone since the 1980s.
And right on our doorstep, many Australian residents and antinuclear groups are angry, concerned it may be Trojan Horse for a nuclear power industry. Because while Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines will not be nuclear-armed, the small reactors used to power them do produce weapons-grade uranium as waste.
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Australia tweeted about the deal: “The nuclear-powered submarine deal raises serious concerns over nuclear proliferation as the UK and US’ models use highly enriched uranium.
“This is not prestige, this is provocation.”
The nuclear-powered submarine deal raises serious concerns over nuclear proliferation as the UK and US’ models use highly enriched uranium.
This is not prestige, this is provocation.#nuclearbanpic.twitter.com/QZLSTjhLoq— ICAN Australia (@ican_australia) September 17, 2021
“Important questions remain over construction of the submarines and the potential imposition of military nuclear reactors on Adelaide or other cities, making construction sites and host ports certain nuclear targets,” said Gem Romuld, Director of ICAN Australia.
“Military nuclear reactors in Australia would present a clear nuclear weapons proliferation risk and become potential sites for nuclear accidents and radiological contamination long into the future.”
Green Party leader Adam Bandt even likened the move to putting “floating Chernobyls in the heart of Australia’s cities”
Dr. Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner, Friends of the Earth Australia, said that nuclear powered submarines typically use highly-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. This would undermine global efforts to phase out the use of HEU because of WMD proliferation and security concerns.
“The government wants to build nuclear submarines in suburban Adelaide. Does that put a target on our back? Is it prudent to build nuclear submarines in a city of 1.3 million people?
“What alternative locations have been considered, if any?”
Regarding waste products, Dr Green said: “The government has been silent about disposal of the high-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste generated by a nuclear submarine program.
“ … 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.
.
Russia urges IAEA monitoring, ‘transparency’ on US-Australia nuclear sub pact,
Russia urges IAEA monitoring, ‘transparency’ on US-Australia nuclear sub pact, Press TV, Friday, 17 September 2021 Russia warns against Australia’s attempt to becoming a nuclear power under a trilateral pact Canberra signed with the United States and Britain earlier this week.
Russian Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov said on Friday that “time has not come yet for such estimations” about Australia turning into a nuclear power.
Under a new Australia-UK-US alliance (Aukus), Canberra would be building at least eight nuclear submarines, using US technology.
The first of the submarines is expected to enter service is 2036.
Ulyanov warned that the plan “is alarming and makes you keep a close eye on that.”
“Australia is a non-nuclear power,” he said, adding that “all this should be closely supervised by the IAEA and its inspection mechanism.”……..
Many observers warned that the trilateral pact could lead to a situation very similar to the US-Russian arms race during the cold war…… https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2021/09/17/666731/Russia-Australia-nuclear-powered-submarines-Aukus-
Greens pick anti-nuclear candidate to challenge Treasurer Josh Fraudenberg
Greens pick anti-nuclear candidate to take on Frydenberg, The Age, By Annika Smethurst, September 17, 2021 Melbourne lawyer and activist Piers Mitchem has spent years researching global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and now he wants Josh Frydenberg’s job.
Days after the Morrison government unveiled plans for a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, the Greens will announce on Saturday that Mr Mitchem is its candidate for Kooyong – the seat in Melbourne’s affluent, leafy eastern suburbs held by the federal Treasurer.
………. Speaking to The Age ahead of the Greens announcement, Mr Mitchem described the Morrison government’s decision to purchase a new fleet of nuclear submarines as “a deeply, deeply worrying announcement” that could have profound implications for nuclear proliferation globally.
“The risk is that other countries, who have much stronger incentives to build nuclear weapons than Australia does, would rely on this precedent as a pretext for developing their own nuclear capabilities,” he told The Age.
“These submarines are likely to run on highly enriched uranium [HEU] – the same grade of uranium used in nuclear weapons – which would shatter a decades-long practice of non-nuclear states refraining from using HEU for military activities.
“Many Australians would also rightly be concerned at the prospect of these nuclear reactors floating in the harbours of their capital cities at any given time.”
Mirroring the party’s election strategy in the neighbouring seat of Higgins, the Greens will try and convince the well-heeled voters of Kooyong, which includes the suburbs of Hawthorn, Kew, Balwyn, Canterbury and Camberwell, that the Morrison government is beholden to the National Party, particularly on climate policies.
The Greens campaign is expected to focus on the return of Barnaby Joyce as the minor party tries to convince more progressive Liberal Party supporters voters to reject the Coalition.
In a direct attack on Mr Frydenberg as Treasurer, the Greens will also campaign on JobKeeper payments paid to big businesses during the pandemic which Mr Mitchem described as “one of the most unforgivable policy failures in the history of this country”…….
Greens leader Adam Bandt accused Mr Frydenberg, who suffered a sizeable swing at the 2019 election, of failing to deliver on climate change promises made during the last election……https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/greens-pick-anti-nuclear-candidate-to-take-on-frydenberg-20210917-p58snj.html
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
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 