nuclear-news

Nuclear Threat Beneath The Seas

this development will not enhance Hawai‘i’s security; instead, it will place residents, ecosystems, and future generations in direct danger by turning the islands into a priority target in any potential nuclear conflict.

Housing nuclear submarines does not enhance security—it increases risk. These vessels carry dozens of thermonuclear warheads, and their presence in densely populated areas like Faslane and Pearl Harbor makes those regions high-priority targets in any potential conflict. But that’s not the only danger. Accidents happen.

By Lynda Williams, Popular Resistance, April 3, 2025, https://popularresistance.org/nuclear-threat-beneath-the-seas/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR08tn1TsnqxjAIg6qVp8KCYV3x9pW42zmP8114Fxte0qPxU_54NVNPraYU_aem_U7nVrPbu5zG5fwkqLnioDA

The Rising Danger of the Global Submarine Nuclear Arms Race.

Right now, beneath the world’s oceans, approximately 30 nuclear-armed submarines patrol silently, virtually undetectable. These submarines represent humanity’s deadliest doomsday machines: stealthy, always on alert, and capable of launching thousands of nuclear warheads at a moment’s notice. At any given time, an estimated 10 to 15 of them are deployed, carrying roughly 500 to 900 warheads—enough to kill hundreds of millions and trigger a nuclear winter with potentially irreversible global consequences. With this capacity to destroy life on Earth many times over, the world’s nuclear states aren’t scaling back — they’re building more, pushing the Doomsday Clock ever closer to midnight.

The Current and Growing Nuclear Submarine Global Arsenal

Six nations currently operate nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), nuclear-powered vessels designed to launch ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads from beneath the sea, each with the kill power of thousands of Hiroshima bombs. The United States and Russia maintain the largest fleets, each fielding more than a dozen SSBNs capable of carrying hundreds of warheads, with several submarines on constant patrol. China, the United Kingdom, and France operate smaller fleets of four to six submarines, keeping at least one deployed at all times. India, a more recent entrant, has one operational nuclear-armed submarine with more in development. The cost of building and maintaining these underwater arsenals is estimated at $300–400 billion. Together, the current global fleet of about 40 SSBNs carries over 1,500 nuclear warheads—enough destructive power to kill hundreds of millions within hours and trigger a nuclear winter that could collapse the Earth’s biosphere. 

All six nations are now developing next-generation nuclear-armed submarines: the Columbia-class in the U.S., the Dreadnought in the UK, the SNLE 3G in France, the Type 096 in China, successors to the Arihant in India, and the Borei-A in Russia—at a collective cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. The other three nuclear-armed states—Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—do not currently operate nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, though all three are exploring submarine-based nuclear delivery systems to varying degrees.

New Nuclear Arms Race Under the Sea 

On March 20, 2025, the United Kingdom formally began construction of its new Dreadnought-class nuclear submarine at BAE Systems in Barrow-in-Furness. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer presided over the ceremonial blessing, praising the program as essential for national security. Outside the shipyard, members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) protested the event, condemning the Dreadnought program as a reckless escalation of the global nuclear arms race. The Dreadnought will replace the UK’s aging Vanguard-class submarines and carry Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, each capable of delivering multiple nuclear warheads with enormous destructive potential.

Although the submarines are built in England, they are based in Scotland, at HMNB Clyde (Faslane)—the home port of the UK’s entire nuclear-armed submarine fleet. Opposition to Trident is strongest in Scotland, where public opinion and the Scottish Parliament have consistently rejected nuclear weapons. Scottish CND, the country’s leading anti-nuclear organization, has organized decades of protests at Faslane, calling for disarmament and the removal of Trident from Scottish waters. For many Scots, the continued deployment of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil—against the will of its people—is not only a democratic violation but a threat to their safety and sovereignty. The issue remains a central point of tension in the ongoing debate over Scottish independence. For many Scots, the continued deployment of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil—against the will of its people—is not only a democratic violation but a threat to their safety and sovereignty. 

Meanwhile in the Pacific, the United States is dramatically expanding its nuclear infrastructure at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawai‘i. A $3.4 billion construction project is underway to build Dry Dock 5, which for the first time will enable Hawai‘i to host and service the Navy’s nuclear-armed submarines. Specifically designed for the maintenance and deployment of the next-generation Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines—the largest and most heavily armed submarines ever built by the U.S.—this marks a dangerous turning point for the islands, transforming Hawai‘i into an active nuclear-weapons port. This escalation is part of the Pentagon’s increased focus on the Indo-Pacific region, aimed largely at countering China’s growing military presence. Critics warn this development will not enhance Hawai‘i’s security; instead, it will place residents, ecosystems, and future generations in direct danger by turning the islands into a priority target in any potential nuclear conflict.

Current Ports for US Nuclear-Armed Submarines, Expansions and Resistance

The U.S. Navy currently houses its nuclear-armed Ohio-class submarines at Naval Base Kitsap in Bremerton, Washington, and Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia. In preparation for the arrival of the Columbia-class submarines, the Navy is expanding these facilities, including significant upgrades at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to accommodate the larger submarines. Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay is also undergoing extensive modifications, set to be completed by 2028. These expansions are part of the ongoing effort to bolster the U.S. nuclear arsenal—an approach that increases global risk, while the argument for nuclear deterrence remains a dangerous, outdated belief that only exacerbates global instability.

The Environmental Cost of Stealth: Active Sonar Assault on Marine Life

Nuclear submarines are engineered to be nearly undetectable—silent, mobile, and invisible to satellites and radar. This stealth makes them the most prized assets of nuclear deterrence strategy, designed to guarantee a second-strike capability even if a country’s land-based forces are destroyed. But their very elusiveness has triggered a massive and expanding global network of submarine detection systems composed primarily of sonar—Sound Navigation and Ranging—which floods the oceans with high-intensity sound waves and has a devastating impact on marine life.

To track nuclear-armed submarines, nations have constructed vast undersea surveillance systems. The United States, Russia, China, and NATO allies operate continuous detection efforts across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, relying on networks of fixed sonar arrays, underwater drones, mobile surveillance ships, and anti-submarine aircraft. These systems—particularly those using active sonar, which emits powerful blasts of sound—flood the oceans with intense noise. These pulses bounce off underwater objects and return to the detector, allowing operators to locate submarines through echolocation. But they also bounce marine mammals like whales and dolphins, potentially causing damage to their hearing, impairing their ability to navigate, and in some cases, leading to death. Scientific studies have linked active sonar to mass strandings, behavioral changes, and hearing loss. Environmental organizations, including the Center for Biological Diversity, warn that submarine detection efforts pose “a hidden but severe environmental threat to marine life.” The Natural Resources Defense Council has challenged military sonar in court, while Greenpeace’s Defending Our Oceans campaign has called for an end to sonar use in sensitive marine habitats.

The Nuclear Triad and the Arms Race

Nuclear-armed submarines represent one leg of the nuclear triad, alongside land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers like the B-52 and the new B-21 Raider. Together, these three delivery systems sustain a global arsenal of over 13,000 nuclear warheads owned by nine countries, including Russia (5,889), the U.S. (5,244), and China (410) (SIPRI). The global nuclear arsenal, with the combined destructive power of 417,067 Hiroshima bombs, could cause 58.4 billion deaths—more than seven times the current global population—demonstrating the staggering overkill potential of the triad. This estimate is based on the average number of casualties from the 15-kiloton Hiroshima bomb (approximately 140,000 deaths), assuming similar effects from modern nuclear warheads.

The United States alone is investing $1.7 trillion in its Nuclear Modernization Plan., which includes new Columbia-class submarines, Sentinel ICBMs, and the B-21 Raider bombers, along with new or upgraded warheads. The cost of maintaining and modernizing nuclear arsenals is astronomical. Since the Manhattan Project in 1942, the U.S. has spent over $10 trillion (adjusted for inflation) on nuclear weapons development, maintenance, and cleanup (Brookings Institution). Globally, estimates suggest that over $20 trillion has been spent on nuclear weapons programs in the last 80 years.

The return of Donald Trump to the presidency has intensified global tensions, particularly within NATO and in conflict zones like Ukraine and Gaza. His threats to withdraw U.S. support for NATO and end military aid to Ukraine have destabilized European security, prompting some leaders to consider expanding their own nuclear arsenals  (The Guardian). The Doomsday Clock was moved to 89 seconds to midnight in January 2025—the closest it has ever been. As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists warns:

“Continuing on the current trajectory is nothing less than a form of madness.” Without urgent action through disarmament, diplomacy, and arms control, humanity risks slipping beyond the point of no return.

Rising Tide of Resistance

The resistance to these doomsday ships has been long and ongoing, with local groups such as Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in Bremerton, Washington, and the Kings Bay Plowshares in St. Marys, Georgia, actively opposing the operations of nuclear-armed submarine bases. Ground Zero, established in 1977 adjacent to Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, engages in peaceful protests and civil disobedience to challenge the presence of nuclear weapons in their community. Similarly, the Kings Bay Plowshares, a group of seven Catholic peace activists, gained attention for their 2018 action at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, where they symbolically disarmed nuclear weapons to protest their existence. In response to escalating dangers posed by the expanding submarine nuclear arms race, a growing global movement is demanding disarmament. Organizations like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the UK, Veterans For Peace in the U.S., the Australian Anti-AUKUS Coalition, and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) are mobilizing to oppose the new nuclear arms race and advocate for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). As Retired U.S. Army Colonel Ann Wright of Veterans For Peace recently stated:

“The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that it will take only one nuke to kill us all! If any nation fires just one nuclear weapon at any target, then the U.S. and Russia will respond thinking the next nuke might be coming toward them. And that one nuke will trigger a nuclear weapons exchange that will be the end of our planet as we now know it.”

In April 2025, the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace is organizing a Peace Camp at RAF Lakenheath. This camp aims to protest the proposed return of U.S. nuclear weapons, specifically the B61-12 bombs, to the base. Echoing sentiments from the historic Greenham Common protests, the camp will feature workshops, vigils, and nonviolent direct actions. Kate Hudson, General Secretary of CND, echoed this urgency during the protest at Barrow-in-Furness on March 20, 2025:

“Nuclear weapons do not make us safe. In fact, they are weapons of mass destruction that put us all at risk of annihilation. Britain should be leading the way towards disarmament, not escalating this deadly arms race.”

According to Laulani Teale, coordinator of Hoʻopae Pono Peace Project in Hawaii,

“The construction of a war dock for nuclear submarines in the very home of our sacred shark goddess, Ka’ahupahau, who is the protector of O’ahu and the keeper of peace itself, should not be acceptable to anyone. It is time to end colonialism everywhere, before we all die of it.”

As we mark the 80th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this is a pivotal moment for global action. These groups are calling for renewed international pressure, public education, and grassroots mobilization. The risks we face are immense, but so too is the potential for a unified global movement to prevent catastrophe.

Lynda Williams is a physicist, performance artist and activist based in Hilo, Hawaii. More of her reporting here. https://lyndalovon.blogspot.com/ Lynda is going on tour this summer in the UK with her one woman show ATOMIC CABARET commemorating the 80th Anniversary of the US Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

April 6, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Recycling Nuclear Waste: A Win-Win or a Dangerous Gamble?

As interest in nuclear power rises, startups are pursuing plans to recycle spent fuel and reuse its untapped energy to power reactors. Advocates tout new recycling methods as a breakthrough, but many experts warn it will extract plutonium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

Yale Enevironment 360, By Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow • April 2, 2025

Nuclear power plants keep their waste close by. Every nuclear plant in the United States includes an area onsite where spent fuel is being stored. This material — ceramic pellets stacked into rods and bundled together — consists mostly of uranium. But the spent fuel also includes elements that were created during the process: fast-decaying radionuclides such as cesium and strontium, as well as longer-lived, heavier elements, notably plutonium. Emanating intense heat and radiation, the spent fuel rods are placed first in cooling pools and then in “dry cask storage” — steel canisters that block these radioactive isotopes from escaping. 

Most would see this legacy of radioactive waste as a burden and a danger. But some are now seeing it differently: as an asset and an opportunity. Although no longer capable of efficiently fissioning, spent fuel still contains significant amounts of untapped energy that can be harnessed and used again. In other words, it can be recycled — particularly in certain types of advanced reactors currently in development. Recycling would not only shrink the volume of radioactive material that would eventually need to be buried underground, advocates say, but it could also reduce the need to mine new uranium, another controversial aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle. 

Recycling nuclear waste is probably the single biggest point of contention among people who otherwise support nuclear power.

It sounds like a win-win, as sensible as putting our aluminum cans in the bins with chasing arrows. And as interest in nuclear energy has grown in recent years — driven by climate concerns and, more recently, demand from energy-intensive data centers — so has enthusiasm in some quarters for recycling this waste stream. Late last year, the Department of Energy announced $10 million in funding for research on recycling technologies and at least two relevant bipartisan bills were introduced in Congress: one would “require the Secretary of Energy to study new technologies and opportunities for recycling spent nuclear fuel”; another would streamline licensing requirements for recycling facilities. 

Several advanced nuclear startups, including Oklo and Curio, say they intend to run their reactors exclusively on spent fuel. Oklo, backed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and based in Santa Clara, California, is working toward building its first commercial unit at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory. Jake DeWitte, Oklo’s CEO, told me, “Frankly, there’s enough energy content in the waste of today’s reactors to power the whole country for 150 years.” 

In the last several years, while reporting a book on nuclear energy, I heard frequently from nuclear advocates about the possibility of recycling. It struck me as a promising solution that could mitigate several of the problems associated with nuclear power. But as I learned more, I realized that the concept, far from being a no-brainer, is intensely controversial — probably the single biggest point of contention among people who otherwise support nuclear power. 

The fundamental issue is that reprocessing spent fuel involves extracting plutonium from fuel pellets. (Although the terms “reprocessing” and “recycling” are often used interchangeably, the former refers to separating out the usable material; the latter refers to deploying this material again in a reactor.) And nuclear nonproliferation experts are deeply concerned about any process that makes plutonium more accessible…………………………………..

Beyond proliferation concerns, there’s a host of other challenges, experts say. New waste streams are created along the way — everything that is touched during reprocessing, such as equipment, gets contaminated. And even after reprocessing, waste remains — the highly radioactive “fission products,” including cesium and strontium. …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The greater concern is that nations, including those without nuclear weapons, could establish reprocessing facilities and use them to create bombs.

…………………………………………………………………..A crucial question is whether different reprocessing techniques can reduce the risks. Oklo is planning to use a technique called pyroprocessing, which was developed at Argonne National Laboratory, in Illinois, in the 1980s and 1990s, with the specific intention of reducing the proliferation risk……………..

………………. There is debate over how much pyroprocessing actually mitigates the risk. The finished product is still closer to weapons-usable than spent fuel that has not been reprocessed

…………..One expert worries that the prospect of recycling is being used to suggest that the nuclear waste problem is going to solve itself.…………………https://e360.yale.edu/features/nuclear-waste-recycling

April 6, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment