Yeah, so wouldn't switching to life-of-the-ship reactors make sense? The savings will allow you to go for more subs.
No, because that's stupid.
The only reason the US are using high-enriched uranium is because they had a ton of the stuff from dismantling part of their nuclear arsenal thanks to the SALT and START treaties.
But while on paper it looks good to have reactors that will last for the life of the ship, in practice there are tons of drawbacks.
The first is that it's weapon grade uranium, so technically you could crack open the sub and use the uranium to make a bomb. That's why the whole thing is iffy from a non-proliferation point of view.
The second is that it means your reactor fuel has to maintain viable for 30-to-40 years. Because yes there's a lot of usable uranium in it, but remember how nuclear fission works: that means they'll generate a lot of
neutron poison. That means that the reactor will behave very differently throughout its life. For low-enriched reactors, it's not a problem -- you can make use of the regularly scheduled overhauls (that you're gonna have to do anyway, regardless of HEU, LEU, or diesel) -- to clean up the reactor as you recharge it. But for a HEU reactor, it can be a real problem.
Note that the USA are planning to move away from HEU. Reasons being that they're nearly exhausted their surplus stockpile of the stuff, and the technical disadvantages of HEU.
It also does not express concern, as at least
one expert has, about possible corrosion failures of nuclear power reactor systems that would not be inspected for three to four decades. Problems with these life-of-ship systems, which are not designed for service access, can be very costly. In 2015, welding was found to be defective in a joint in the steam supply piping of three new Virginia-class submarines. Contriving a way to replace the joint
took the first submarine out of service for two years.
Using LEU allows to use the civilian nuclear infrastructure for obtaining fuel and dealing with the wastes. A positive side effect is that it therefore also helps sustain said civilian infrastructure. With HEU, you don't get that synergy.
Macron downplays NATO wording on China
www.republicworld.com
French President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday NATO still needs to make clear its strategic priorities, nearly a year after he said the trans-Atlantic alliance was "brain dead".
www.reuters.com
The North Atlantic Treaty
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.
What part of this treaty is related to China? As long as China does not invade or attack anything in Europe, North America, the Mediterranean, or the Atlantic Ocean north of the Tropic of Cancer, NATO is simply illegitimate to do anything. NATO was created to contain Russia in Europe. It's useless at containing China in South-East Asia. What you'd want is some sort of
South East Asia Treaty Organization instead...
Trump's position on NATO was also telling. He openly said Europe has to do more, which was indirectly a message that the US won't be able to protect Europe like it could in the past. Which is why I support France's position to begin a Common Defence, where Europe becomes in charge of its own security, so the US could focus on China and Russia in the Pacific.
Trump's position is not shared by the bulk of the US establishment, who wants Europe to remain weak and divided. The US would rather have useless vassals than independent allies. That's because they are a hegemony, and as such can only perceive the world in a "with us or against us" dichotomy. Anyone who is not slavishly aligned to their unilateral decisions is not a partner but an enemy.
Why AUKUS? Because it was important to break the Attack contract. The way Turnbull had negotiated it, it would have given Australia the ability to autonomously build and maintain their submarines -- not just the Attack class itself, but also the next generation. This was a 180° from the previous Australian policy of abject allegiance to the USA, so Morrison was happy to oblige.
Japan’s Client State (Zokkoku) Problem
The truth is that the US does not admit of “equality” in its relations with any other state. “Allies” tend to be appreciated for their servility. The most warmly welcomed leaders are those most ready to follow the (Tony) Blair path, even if it means becoming known in their own countries as “poodles.” Where Blair was a regular and feted visitor to the White House, dissenters from the servile line are frozen out and ridiculed, as Hatoyama found in 2009. Client states, tied vertically to their “patron,” are structurally incapable of dissent and thus complicit in acts by which their patron abuses international law and engages in criminal acts of aggression, war, and torture. They bear a responsibility for the consequences of their support for the US and the consequences that followed, terrible for Koreans (and later for Vietnamese), and catastrophic still later for Iraqis, Afghans and others. They thus help sustain a vertically framed global order incompatible with universal principles. For Japan and East Asia, the self-abnegation and servility at the heart of the Japanese state serves to subvert any project for Asian community and to destabilize rather than stabilize the region.
Keep in mind at all time what this means for India. While they need you against China right now, they'll never like you, and they'll always try to cripple you even as they profess to assist you. After all, what's the point of contesting the nascent Chinese hegemony if it's to end up having to contest a nascent Indian hegemony afterwards?
www.theguardian.com
.
.
www.defensenews.com
