Public comment period regarding Bradwell nuclear project is drawing to its end.
After nearly four years, just one month remains for members of the public
to comment on the reactor technology for the proposed nuclear power station
at Bradwell B. The China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) and the French
power company EDF, through their joint venture company General Nuclear
System Limited, initiated the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process of
the proposed reactor in January 2017.
The public comment process, allowing
the public to provide feedback on the UK HPR1000 reactor technology planned
for use at Bradwell B, opened in November 2017 and is due to finish on
Friday, 17 September 2021. Since it began, a range of concerns have been
raised, including those related to climate change, safety and technical
questions.
Maldon Nub News 16th Aug 2021
Men, Conservative Party supporters and Brexit-backers more likely to support use of nuclear weapons
Men, Conservative Party supporters and Brexit-backers more likely to support use of nuclear weapons, Mirage News, University of Exeter, 13 Aug 21,
Men, Conservative Party supporters and those who wanted Britain to leave the EU, are more likely to want to retain Britain’s nuclear deterrent, a study shows.
Those who endorse superior military power worldwide as an important foreign policy goal and people who want to protect the transatlantic relationship are also more likely to be in favour of nuclear weapons, according to the research.
Those who voted ‘remain’ in the EU referendum are less likely to support keeping nuclear weapons relative to those who voted to leave the EU. Supporters of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, UKIP, the Green Party, and Plaid Cymru are less likely to support keeping nuclear weapons.
The study, published in the European Journal of International Security, was carried out by Ben Clements, from the University of Leicester, and Catarina Thomson, from the University of Exeter.
Academics used data from the new UK Security Survey to analyse attitudes towards the possession of nuclear weapons among the British public, the majority of who supported retaining nuclear weapons.
Dr Thomson said: “We have found the recurring ‘gender gap’ found on state use of conventional military force extends to Britain’s nuclear force capabilities, with men more in favour of retaining the nuclear deterrent than women.
“Political preferences have a significant role to play in affecting people’s likelihood of supporting of Britain retaining its nuclear weapons. Identifying with political parties with a clear nuclear stance is generally significant in affecting people’s views on the UK nuclear programme.
“Our data suggest that supporters of parties that do not take an anti-nuclear stance, such as the Liberal Democrats or UKIP, are less likely to support keeping nuclear weapons. Those who voted for Britain to remain in the EU are less likely to agree with the statement that the UK should keep its nuclear weapons. This provides further evidence of the potency of views on the Brexit debate for other issues in the post-referendum political landscape, concerning both domestic and external policy.”…………..
The survey was fielded by YouGov between 1– 25 April 2017 (before the official announcement of the snap general election), with a representative sample of 2,002 adults in Britain. The data was weighed by age, gender, social class, region, level of education, how respondents voted at the previous election, how respondents voted at the EU referendum, and their general level of political interest. https://www.miragenews.com/men-conservative-party-supporters-and-brexit-613537/
Over 1.5k people sign petition against nuclear waste storage in Lincolnshire, UK
Over 1,500 people have signed a petition to say no to plans to store
nuclear waste underground on the Lincolnshire coast. Plans emerged to
dispose of nuclear waste at a site near Mablethorpe this week, as
Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) said it was in “early discussions”
with Lincolnshire County Council about using the former ConocoPhillips Gas
Terminal in Theddlethorpe as a Geological Disposal Facility, but that no
decisions had been made.
Lincolnshire County Council Leader Martin Hill
claimed it was only 10 days ago they had a presentation from the firm, and
that it was the first time they’d had a meeting with them. He also said a
“binding” local referendum would be held and “if it’s a no,
that’s the end of it”, according to the BBC.
Lincolnite 29th July 2021
Israeli public opinion makes a US-Iran nuclear deal urgent
Israeli public opinion makes a US-Iran nuclear deal urgent, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Doreen Horschig | May 14, 2021 Israel has consistently opposed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that the Biden administration is seeking to revive. The recent diplomatic talks in Vienna have been a welcome opportunity for proponents of the deal. But when progress was reported, Israel allegedly damaged an Iranian military vessel and a few days later caused a power outage at the Iranian nuclear site in Natanz.
Israel believes Tehran never abandoned its ambition to become a nuclear-armed state and that the deal paves the path for realizing this ambition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his administration have been trying to convince the United States that a return to the JCPOA would be a mistake unless major flaws are addressed.
There are some straightforward reasons why it might be in Israel’s interest to revive the JCPOA, including a reduction of Iran’s installed centrifuges and stockpiles of enriched uranium. But another reason for reviving the deal has received little attention: Israeli public opinion. Not because the public supports the JCPOA (they don’t), but because—as my own recent research found—the Israeli public is highly hawkish and would be supportive of a nuclear first strike against a nuclear-armed Iran.
In other words, the world cannot rely on the Israeli public to avoid atomic warfare in the Middle East. Because of this, the Biden administration needs to redouble its efforts to make sure that the United States and Iran re-enter the nuclear deal. If Iran further develops the bomb and eventually obtains it, Israel’s government has public backing for a nuclear first strike against Iran—which would be both a regional and global disaster. The Israeli public will not provide a constraint if a nuclear strike is being considered………………
Israeli public opinion. Very few recent polls have attempted to identify preferences among the Israeli population for a nuclear strike. To fill this gap, I worked with Midgam—an Israeli research and consulting firm that frequently partners with academics—last summer to survey a nationally representative sample of 1,022 Israeli adults, including both Jews and Arabs. The survey aims to understand the circumstances under which people might support a first strike with a nuclear weapon………..
My survey results confirm a large hawkish majority indeed lurks within the Israeli public. Survey respondents read a government press release presenting a scenario that included an Iranian nuclear threat—and suggesting that an Israeli nuclear strike would effectively destroy an Iranian nuclear facility. The respondents were then asked: “Given the facts described in the article, if Israel decides to strike, how much would you approve or disapprove of this decision?” The findings suggest that 60 percent of Israelis approved of a nuclear first strike on Natanz if they felt threatened by a (hypothetically) nuclear-armed Iran. Even with a reminder of likely Iranian retaliation, approval for a strike was higher (45 percent) than disapproval (38 percent).
When I dug deeper to explore why some people are so supportive of the use of an atomic bomb, my research suggested that Israelis who were reminded of their mortality (through open-ended questions about their own deaths) were significantly more likely to support nuclear use in a first strike than those who were not reminded of death. Though it may seem paradoxical, a theory of psychology called Terror Management Theory predicts just that. It suggests that, when individuals are prompted to think of their own death, they become less risk-averse and increase their support for extreme aggression toward whatever it is that challenges their worldview—a worldview that normally provides a defensive death-denying belief. And what could remind Israelis more of their death than the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran?
This all suggests that the public cannot be counted on to be a constraint on Israeli leadership. Unlike during the Cold War, when people took to the streets to protest the US-Soviet arms race and use of nuclear weapons, there is currently no visible pro-disarmament sentiment in Israel. No public opposition in Israel will put a check on an Israeli nuclear first strike.
To avoid a dire conflict, it is in Israel’s interest to support diplomatic steps. So far, the JCPOA has prevented a trajectory to a nuclear first strike more effectively than counterproliferation measures and withdrawal did. If Israel needs one more reason to sympathize with the JCPOA, here it is: Public hawkishness could be a contributing factor that spirals the country into a nuclear crisis.
……….. If Israel wants to prevent a situation in which a nuclear-armed Iran causes the Israeli citizenry to support a nuclear first strike, then it should get on board with the JCPOA. And the Israeli public’s hawkishness should give the Biden administration an increased sense of purpose and urgency.
The window of opportunity to revive the Iran nuclear deal is closing quickly………………While the deal is not perfect, it’s at least a measure that has shown effectiveness in the past. ……….https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/israeli-public-opinion-makes-a-us-iran-nuclear-deal-urgent?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter05172021&utm_content=NuclearRisk_IranDealUrgent_05142021
Fukushima waste water plan won’t win public confidence, no matter how hard Japan tries
Fukushima waste water plan won’t win public confidence, no matter how hard Japan tries, Peter Wynn Kirby https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3130239/fukushima-waste-water-plan-wont-win-public-confidence-no-matter-how
- The nuclear industry’s history of secrecy and cover-ups is only one reason
- Tepco’s incompetent and at times dishonest handling so far of the 2011 disaster and its aftermath has shattered what’s left of people’s trust.
To exasperated observers, this recalled the nuclear industry’s notorious 1990s mobilisation of Pluto-kun, a puckish cartoon character who drinks plutonium – arguably the world’s most dangerous substance – to demonstrate its harmlessness.
While other nations in the region have registered vociferous opposition to the water release plan, the domestic resistance is telling. A majority of Japanese oppose the plan. For a decade, the fishing industry has laboured, successfully, to show that the seafood it brings to market is safe, giving a wide berth to the plume of radioactive effluent haemorrhaging out of the Fukushima nuclear plant. All these efforts may soon appear to have been made in vain.
As indicated above, the choice of last Tuesday for the announcement seems to have been dictated by politics alone. Did Japan see the Olympics as a feel-good spectacle that could provide cover for the decision? Did US President Joe Biden’s recent pressure on Japan and South Korea to work together on regional security make the timing more palatable?
Whatever the calculus involved, one thing is for sure: the more Japan tries to make Fukushima Daiichi seem perfectly safe, the more people distrust the message – and the messenger.
As the Japanese proverb goes, “Let the past drift away like water.” Yet with radiation, letting go is not so simple. Even as the Japanese government tries to rid itself of the catastrophic after-effects of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, radioactive traces stubbornly remain.
Japan announced last week its intention to release about 1.25 million tonnes of waste water collected from the bowels of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. The water to be released into the Pacific Ocean contains tritium, a radioactive hydrogen isotope with a half-life of over 12 years. The unwelcome news has provoked uproar both within Japan and among neighbouring countries.
For over a decade, authorities have been engaged in a messy, difficult, frustrating, even Sisyphean task, flushing the ruined footprint of the power station with water to keep the slumped nuclear fuel there from triggering a chain reaction.The meltdowns left parlous uranium fuel in desultory clumps amid the wreckage below. The only way to cool the escaped uranium is to flood the most dangerous areas of the Fukushima Daiichi complex with circulating seawater. Radioactive groundwater and waste water have been stored on-site to avoid contact with humans and the environment.
Ever since, huge water tanks filled with contaminated water have been springing up around the Fukushima Daiichi site like poisonous mushrooms. Now, there are over 1,000 of them. Most rival the size of small Japanese apartment buildings.
You didn’t have to be a genius to realise that the situation at Fukushima Daiichi was unsustainable. Any child who could do basic maths, or maybe a bit of Minecraft, would have been able to see that, day by day, month by month, the water would increase and the 350-hectare site would have less and less available space.Whatever else you might say about Japanese bureaucrats with regard to nuclear policy, they have very good maths skills. As a result, we can surmise that Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s announcement last week was, at root, a question of politics and calculated timing
Not that Japan didn’t attempt to resolve the situation otherwise. Authorities tried a range of strategies, including plugging leaks and creating a gigantic US$300 million ice wall around the site, underground, to stem water flow.
In the end, filtering the waste water was the only workable solution. But Japan had mixed results with this strategy. In June 2011, the first filtration system set up by reviled Tepco – Tokyo Electric Power Co, the company that owned the nuclear power station – broke down after only a few hours. The amount of radioactive Caesium in the water overwhelmed the filters.
More recently, before a parliamentary commission, Tepco was forced to admit that it had falsely claimed to have treated most of the waste water from the plant. In actual fact, Tepco had properly dealt with only about one-fifth of the waste water.
Astonishingly, this disappointing result stemmed from it not having bothered to change the filters often enough. Even such basic elements of quality control seem to be beyond the capabilities of the Tepco team, which already lives in infamy after having presided over the world’s second most damaging civil nuclear disaster, after Chernobyl.
Predictably, scientists, officials and industry stakeholders argue that this degree of tritium discharge happens all the time in the nuclear industry – this is more or less true, however perturbing – and suggest that the announced controlled release should therefore present no problem whatsoever.
But the history of the nuclear industry globally is one of military synergies, secrecy, cover-ups, Machiavellian information management, and propaganda-style communication with the public. Indeed, it was striking that on the very same day as Suga’s announcement, Japan’s reconstruction agency released a video depicting tritium in the form of Tritium-kun, a harmless-seeming fishlike creature with blushing cheeks who says tritium release is safe.
Nuclear power is unpopular: promoted only by those with vested interests/
Bellona 12th March 2021,Nuclear advocates point to the development of new technologies, such as small modular reactors, which can be deployed locally, and whose small scale limits the potential for Fukushima-sized accidents.
month for Nature, the influential US scientific journal, they assert that the nuclear industry has long ago lost touch with the public it is meant to serve.
Opinion poll – 77% of Ayshire public support a total ban on all nuclear weapons.
Ayrshire CND are greatly encouraged by recent polllling which shows that 77 per cent of the public support a total ban on all nuclear weapons.
1 March 2021 Anti-nuclear campaigners across Ayrshire have been given a huge boost in their battle to force an end to the arms race, writes Stewart McConnell.
Ayrshire CND are greatly encouraged by recent polling which shows that 77 per cent of the public support a total ban on all nuclear weapons.
The survey also showed that almost 60 per cent of people want Britain to sign up to the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which came into force last month.
Group secretary Arthur West, pictured, said: “This recent polling was organised by CND at UK level in conjunction with the professional polling company Survation and the results are hugely encouraging for our campaign to rid this country and our world of the scourge of nuclear weapons.”
“The government’s own figures show that the cost of maintaining Britain’s nuclear weapons based at Faslane is an eye watering 2 billion pounds a year.
“This is frankly money which could be better spent on decent things like health and education and creating quality jobs in areas such as renewable energy and affordable house building.”
The opinion poll referred to was organised by CND at UK level in conjunction with polling company Survation and was conducted on January 12-13.
More than half of public supports UK joining UN ban on nuclear weapons.
The National 22nd Jan 2021, More than half of public supports UK joining UN ban on nuclear weapons.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19029821.half-public-supports-uk-joining-un-ban-nuclear-weapons/
EDF did a small survey of Suffolk community opinion -weighted to favour nuclear industry?
Suffolk towards the building of a new nuclear power station on the coast.
The survey was carried out by a company called ICM Unlimited on behalf of
EDF, which is looking to build the Sizewell C station. ICM interviewed a
representative sample of 500 adults in east Suffolk over the phone between
November 5 and November 19.
dismissed the research as “meaningless”, saying a sample of 500 people – in
an area with a population of 247,000 – was “hardly representative”. All
those that took part in the survey live in the area with data having been
weighted to the population profile of the East Suffolk Council adult
population.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-survey-shows-favourable-results-6854678
Sizewell nuclear project: EDF messes Suffolk communities about, with yet another public consultation, after 1200 responses already
C plans which have been submitted just days after more than 1,200
respondents gave their views on the project.
– and a 30-day public consultation is to take place next month.
materials for the massive project, with an increase in trains and
alterations to the proposed beach landing facility. It was only a few days
ago that the opportunity to comment on the project closed and the Planning
Inspectorate is still verifying each of the 1,287 submissions from people,
businesses, councils and agencies.
that people are likely now to be asked all over again to submit comments on
EDF’s revised proposals. Stop Sizewell C said it could not believe EDF
had only just realised after years of consultation that Suffolk people
didn’t want a road-led transport strategy for delivery of construction
materials that would put 1,000 HGVs on the roads.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-changes-provoke-frustration-from-campaigners-1-6887930
UK: consultation with 2300 people about radioactive waste dump – only 13 people supported it.
Northern Echo 13th Oct 2020, THOUSANDS of people have written to the Environment Agency over concerns that plans to dump radioactive waste in Teesside will pose a risk to
communities. An application has been made by Augean North Ltd for a low
level radioactive waste permit at their existing Port Clarence site,
between Stockton and Billingham.
The Environment Agency, which held a
consultation which ended in January, published its report yesterday. About
2,300 people took part in the four-month exercise, with only 13 supporting
the application.
The Environment Agency is now considering these in
determining whether to grant the permit, taking into account information
submitted by Augean North. The operator has been asked to provide further
information, with a decision expected to be made by the end of January
2021.
Members of the public, as well members of Stockton on Tees Borough
Council and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council commented on the
socioeconomic impact and the general impact on the area, as well as the
potential impact on regeneration plans. Last year, Tees Valley Mayor Ben
Houchen criticised the plans, which he said were against the interests of
those living in surrounding areas. The report can be viewed by visiting
consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/north-east/port-clarence-landfill-permit-application
USA Government Accountabilty Office calls for assessment of costs for planned new nuclear warheads
 NUCLEAR WEAPONS: NNSA Should Further Develop Cost, Schedule, and Risk Information for the W87-1 Warhead Program, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-703
GAO-20-703: Sep 23, 2020. The National Nuclear Security Administration plans to replace the W78—an older type of nuclear warhead used in intercontinental ballistic missiles—with the W87-1, starting in 2030. But it’s unclear if NNSA can produce enough of the W87-1’s fissile cores in time to meet its planned production schedule.NNSA estimated that the new warhead could cost up to $14.8 billion, which could make it the most expensive program of this type to date. Upcoming design decisions for the weapon could affect cost. But the agency didn’t have formal plans to assess the costs and benefits of these decisions. Our recommendations address these and other concerns. |
|
|
Opinion poll shows unpopularity of nuclear power in the USA.
Nuclear Energy Among the Least Popular Sources of Power in the U.S., Polling ShowsNearly half of U.S. adults oppose increasing the country’s number of nuclear energy facilities, Morning Consult, BY LISA MARTINE JENKINS, September 9, 2020
- 1 in 3 adults think the U.S. should keep current nuclear plants online but not build any new facilities.
- 16% believe the U.S. should keep existing nuclear plants operational and build new reactors.
- 29% view nuclear energy favorably and 49% view it unfavorably, making it the most unpopular energy source other than coal.
But new Morning Consult data shows that 21 percent of U.S. adults believe that the country should both stop constructing new nuclear energy facilities and halt current production, while 33 percent agree that new construction should be stopped but think that existing sites should continue producing energy.
Sixteen percent believes that the country should build more reactors, and just 6 percent says that the country should keep current plants running, build more reactors and promote civil nuclear programs abroad (as the United States has done most recently with Poland).
The Aug. 24-27 survey polled 2,200 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.
The survey results come as the Trump administration pushes the development of nuclear energy both domestically and internationally, investing especially in the development of advanced technology in order to speed nuclear’s adoption amid carbon emission reduction goals coming due.
And Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has also expressed interest in developing advanced technology and leveraging existing nuclear capabilities as part of his wider energy plan released in June. (When contacted by Morning Consult, the Biden campaign did not provide information on the former vice president’s views on nuclear beyond what is included in the publicly available plan.)
And while the popular progressive platform the Green New Deal makes no specific mention of nuclear energy, one of its sponsors, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), said last year that it “leaves the door open on nuclear.”
But even with its political support, when compared with other energy sources nuclear seems to have a bad rap among the general public. As compared with a number of energy sources, coal was the only option respondents regarded less favorably than nuclear, with 24 percent viewing coal favorably and 58 percent unfavorably.
Nuclear energy’s net favorability — the favorable share minus the unfavorable share — is similarly underwater, at minus 20 points; this is nearly 70 points below that of natural gas, a fossil fuel whose emissions contribute to climate change. Zero-emission sources such as solar and wind topped the list, with net favorabilities of 76 and 65 points, respectively. ………
Overall, the survey found that more U.S. adults oppose increasing the number of nuclear facilities in the United States than support doing so, ………..
Overall, the survey found that more U.S. adults oppose increasing the number of nuclear facilities in the United States than support doing so… https://morningconsult.com/2020/09/09/nuclear-energy-polling/
KILDARE OPINION SOUGHT ON NEW BRITISH NUCLEAR PLANT
KILDARE OPINION SOUGHT ON NEW BRITISH NUCLEAR PLANT, Kildare Nationalist, SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2020 UNDER provisions made at the United Nations, submissions are invited from interested parties in Kildare to comment on the development of a new nuclear power station planned for the east coast of England.Under the terms of the 1991 United Nations Convention, the Transboundary Environmental Public Consultation allows citizens in neighbouring nations have their say on certain public and private projects likely to have significant effects on the environment.
For this purpose, the member state of the UN in whose territory the project is intended to be carried out is required to send to its neighbours – no later than when informing its own public – a description of the project and any available information on its possible transboundary impact.
In this case, the Department of Environment, Planning and Local Government (DEPLG) was contacted by the British authorites in July about their plans to build a third reactor at the Sizewell nuclear power campus in Suffolk, to afford Irish citizens their chance to offer an opinion.
The letter from the UK’s Planning Inspectorate states that the Secretary of State has received an application to build two reactor units, giving a total site capacity of approximately 3,340MW, along with associated development required for the construction and operation of the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station. …….
the Secretary of State decided to notify Ireland as if the development is likely to have significant adverse transboundary effects on the environment in this
State, as provided for in the UN Convention.
All documents related to the application are available to view on the Department of Environment’s website, and at the Planning Department, Kildare County Council – but by appointment only.
Submissions made in relation to the potential transboundary environmental effects of Sizewell C may be made in writing to the Planning Department, Kildare County Council, Aras Chill Dara, Naas, Co. Kildare or by e-mail to plandept@kildarecoco.ie by 28 October………….the Secretary of State decided to notify Ireland as if the development is likely to have significant adverse transboundary effects on the environment in this
State, as provided for in the UN Convention.
All documents related to the application are available to view on the Department of Environment’s website, and at the Planning Department, Kildare County Council – but by appointment only.
Submissions made in relation to the potential transboundary environmental effects of Sizewell C may be made in writing to the Planning Department, Kildare County Council, Aras Chill Dara, Naas, Co. Kildare or by e-mail to plandept@kildarecoco.ie by 28 October……..https://kildare-nationalist.ie/2020/09/06/kildare-opinion-sought-on-new-british-nuclear-plant/#.X1ViXHkzbIU
Survey finds that U.S. Democrats and Republicans both want to phase out land-based nuclear missiles
|
Democrats And Republicans Agree: Phase Out Land-Based Nuclear Missiles https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewkorda/2020/08/12/democrats-and-republicans-agree-phase-out-land-based-nuclear-missiles/#74441be7109d Matt Korda I write about the nexus between nuclear weapons, climate change, and injustice. Although Democrats and Republicans increasingly seem worlds apart, when it comes to nuclear weapons issues, they’re actually much closer than one might think.
According to a new report by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, 61 percent of Americans–including both Democratic and Republican majorities–are in favor of phasing out the United States’ aging fleet of 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles. This finding is highly noteworthy, as it runs in direct contrast to the Pentagon’s current plan of spending approximately $100 billion to buy a brand-new generation of ICBMs by 2030. The survey, entitled “Common Ground of the American People,” is a compilation of studies conducted over the past five years, collecting data from nearly 86,000 individuals throughout the polling process. It specifically aimed to place the respondents into the shoes of a policymaker: respondents were first given an issue briefing, and were then asked to evaluate arguments for and against various policy proposals, before finally offering their recommendations.
The survey’s unique methodology is highly illuminating, because it allows readers of the report to see which arguments were deemed to be most or least convincing, and by whom. For example, Republicans preferred a proposal to phase out ICBMs while maintaining the same number of deployed warheads, while Democrats preferred a proposal to phase out ICBMs and reduce the arsenal to a lower number of deployed warheads.
The main takeaway though, is that–regardless of how the ICBM phase-out takes place–69 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans agree that the land-based leg of the nuclear triad should be eliminated entirely.
It makes sense that both Democrats and Republicans would agree on phasing out ICBMs: they are outdated, destabilizing, and very expensive. Intercontinental ballistic missiles are largely relics of the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union alike feared a “bolt-from-the-blue” nuclear attack. At the time, it was believed that both countries having large land-based nuclear arsenals would prevent each other from launching a massive surprise attack. However, in today’s multipolar nuclear environment, the likelihood of such an attack is extremely slim, and so ICBMs no longer hold much strategic value. Given the abundance of more flexible options in the U.S. arsenal, U.S. Strategic Command would certainly turn to nuclear bombers or submarines–not ICBMs–in the event of a low-level nuclear crisis.
Additionally, the inherent vulnerability of the ICBM fleet actually creates a psychological pressure to launch them during a nuclear crisis, before an adversary’s missiles can wipe them out. This is why siloed ICBMs–like those deployed across the United States––are commonly referred to as “use ‘em or lose ‘em” weapons. In the event of a false alarm, accident, or miscalculation, this pressure to “use ‘em” could inadvertently trigger a nuclear war. No other nuclear weapon in the US nuclear arsenal comes with this kind of destabilizing psychological pressure. ……
Perhaps knowing this, the Pentagon argues that ICBMs are necessary as a “hedge” in case technological advances suddenly render the United States’ nuclear-armed submarines vulnerable. However, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review admits that “When on patrol, [ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)] are, at present, virtually undetectable, and there are no known, near-term credible threats to the survivability of the SSBN force.” This condition is likely to continue as US submarines get even quieter, thus making these fears seem relatively exaggerated. On top of this, replacing the ICBMs with brand-new missiles would be extremely expensive. The latest estimate for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, as the replacement program is called, totals approximately $100 billion. In reality, these costs are expected to rise, given that the contract will be sole-sourced to Northrop Grumman NOC -0.7% after Boeing BA -2.6% pulled out of the competition last year. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has called this development “very troubling,” and the sole-source contract has since triggered a Federal Trade Commission investigation into Boeing’s allegations that Northrop Grumman was engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
Given these underlying programmatic and strategic concerns––in addition to the new survey demonstrating that both Democrats and Republicans want to phase out ICBMs entirely––why is this $100 billion project still moving forward? In the midst of an election, a recession, and a devastating pandemic, it seems like common sense to delay the program at the very least.
However, a robust lobbying effort by weapons contractors has impeded public scrutiny of the program. Northrop Grumman––the only bidder for the ICBM replacement contract––spent more than $162 million on lobbying between 2008 and 2018, with the bulk of the contributions going to members of the “ICBM Caucus”––a coalition of Senators from states where ICBMs are deployed. In 2018, this lobbying effort helped kill an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which called for a feasibility study on extending the life of the current ICBM force, rather than rebuilding it from scratch. This has had the effect of suppressing public debate over the future of the ICBMs; without studies like this one, the public is being asked to blindly swallow the pro-ICBM claims of those that would materially benefit from their replacement.
The University of Maryland’s report offers a new tool to push back against the “business” of nuclear policy. The survey suggests that corporate lobbying and “special interests” are alienating the public from their elected representatives, and dividing the two political parties even further. Therefore, treating its respondents as neutral “policymakers” clearly demonstrates that without the presence of moneyed interests, Democrats and Republicans agree on much more than one might think. And in this particular instance it is clear: majorities from both parties want to phase out intercontinental ballistic missiles.
|
|
1 This Month
23 April – WEBINAR – Why new nuclear reactors are the wrong tools for decarbonization Thursday, April 23 • 1 AM – 2 AM AEST
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (264)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 