HMS/M Dreadnought SSN101

Why sea-based nuclear weapons won't stabilise the Indo-Pacific

China, India and possibly Pakistan intend to deploy nuclear weapons at sea. Ultimately, such deployments may well have a stabilising effect — that is, they may reduce the risk of full-scale war and nuclear use. Sea-based nuclear weapons might, for instance, fit well with 'no-first-use' doctrines.

 They might also encourage reduced investment in more destabilising forces such as weapons fired from fixed sites, which are vulnerable and thus suited to a 'first strike'. And after all, sea-based nuclear weapons were widely seen as stabilising during the Cold War. 

 

However, we should beware of applying simple retrospective visions of the US-Soviet balance to the Asian strategic scene. There are various reasons to doubt that deployment of sea-based nuclear weapons in Indo-Pacific Asia will be stabilising. 

 

First, to state the obvious, there are three independent centres of nuclear power in Asia: China, India and Pakistan. And that is before counting the US and Russia, as well as North Korea, which one day could also want to base some of its weapons at sea. This fundamental element of the Asian nuclear scene will remain regardless of where weapons are based.

 

Second, although wanting the permanent presence of nuclear weapons at sea as a second-strike capability to guarantee their survival is arguably a stabilising factor, that may not be the driving motivation of all three countries. There seems to be strong interest in China and India, at least, in the symbolic value of strategic submarines, including for parochial or bureaucratic reasons. In addition, these two countries may prefer to avoid deploying nuclear-armed sea-launched ballistic missiles, in order to maximise political control over the weapons. It should also be added, regarding China, that the choice of a secure SSBN base on Hainan island, where berths are largely immune to a first strike, puts less pressure on Beijing to adopt a practice of continuous at-sea deterrence. 

 

Third, deployment of nuclear weapons at sea in Indo-Pacific Asia does not only mean strategic missiles based on submarines.

 

It may include cruise missiles on vulnerable surface platforms. It will also probably include theatre systems designed to target naval forces, notably by Pakistan. This would not be a stabilising factor if command-and-control dilemmas for such systems are resolved in a way that dilutes the ability of national authorities to maintain the highest degree of political control over the weapons at all times. It should be remembered that probably the closest call for the use of nuclear weapons since 1945 concerned naval theatre weapons: it was in Cuba in October 1962.

 

Fourth, Indo-Pacific waters lend themselves less easily to the deployment of non-detectable submarines than was the case for the Cold War confrontation, when the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans offered more opportunities. This is especially true since India and Pakistan are likely to field only medium-range systems for some time, forcing their submarines to operate relatively close to the adversary's shores. It is also worth mentioning that unlikely accidents can happen, as was the case in 2009 when British and French SSBNs collided, and it took them a while to realise what had happened.

 

More generally, the transition period towards the deployment of operational SSBNs by China, India and Pakistan is likely to be long, tortuous and dangerous, for technical and budgetary reasons. What happens if one (or two) of the three countries manages to have a secure sea-based second-strike capability well before the others? 

 

Simply put, it is impossible to argue that the deployment of sea-based nuclear weapons in Indo-Pacific Asia will be inherently stabilising.

The dangers of SSBN proliferation in Indo-Pacific Asia

It has become commonplace to lament the arms races underway in Indo-Pacific Asia.

 

China's military modernisation over the last two decades has helped provoke heightened political tensions and growing concern in capitals from Tokyo to New Delhi to Washington and Moscow.

 

North Korea's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems keeps tensions in Northeast Asia high. The Indian subcontinent is home to two nuclear powers that have fought four wars over the last 65 years. Many countries in the Asian littoral have undertaken serious rearmament programs, and across the region strategists see a proliferation of missiles of all types — anti-access systems, aerospace capabilities and naval platforms, among others

. 

Regional nuclear modernisation programs, especially the development of submarines (nuclear powered or conventional) armed with nuclear weapons, are of special concern.

 

China and India are committed to producing more nuclear-capable delivery systems and weapons with greater range, accuracy and features that make them more lethal and thus more threatening to potential adversaries. Meanwhile Pakistan is pursuing its own program to acquire more capable submarines from China. While no one is arguing, as yet, that Pakistan intends to acquire ballistic missile submarines, some analysts hint that nuclear-tipped cruise missiles are a real possibility. Given Pakistan's record on nuclear proliferation over the past decades, such fears appear real. 

 

With the possible exception of America, powers external to the Indo-Pacific (Russia, for example) are also pursuing strategic modernisation. Russia, lest anyone forget, is an Indo-Pacific nuclear power by virtue of its Pacific Fleet, complete with its latest model SSBNs (in the American lexicon: Ship, Submersible, Ballistic, Nuclear), the Borei class, armed with Bulava missiles. Even the US is investing in the research and development preliminary to building a replacement for the Ohio-class submarines that currently constitute the sea-based leg of the American nuclear triad. American strategic modernisation is not a driver in the region's strategic dynamics, but insofar as the US is executing an Asian 'pivot', American military capabilities, nuclear and conventional, remain important. 

 

This short post will not attempt a net assessment of regional or bilateral rivalries. A full analysis would need to look more closely at all dimensions of military power as well as the impact of American forces in the region. But a simple scan of the table above allows one small observation for a region that may soon be in the grips of a full-blown nuclear arms race. The prospects for stable, long-term peace (meaning greater strategic stability, the reduction of crisis instability, and fewer opportunities for accidents, chance and misperception to lead to conflict) depend, in part, on taking steps sooner rather than later to rein in potentially destabilising developments. At present, regional SSBN programs are not so advanced, and the numbers of platforms and weapons are not so large, that steps cannot avert a widening arms race. 

 

Growing numbers of submarines with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles may preserve second-strike capabilities for their possessors (and thus, debatably, contribute to strategic stability). But in the increasingly crowded seas of  Indo-Pacific Asia, greater numbers also lead to more opportunities for accidents, chance and misperception.

 

Submarine accidents are not unknown: the national tragedy of a lost boat and its crew might quickly become a regional or even global crisis if reactors or nuclear weapons have problems. Submarine operations in cramped seas also raise the possibility that one side or another will encounter the other in a crisis, with unpredictable results. Slowly maturing command and control (C2 ) and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) technologies still have a ways to go (look how long it took in US and the Soviet Union to develop their systems).

 

Furthermore, few speak of the challenge of ensuring the political and professional reliability of crews (while the mature nuclear powers rarely focus today on crew reliability, such concerns were quite real in the not-so-distant past). Nor are SSBNs and ballistic missiles in the Indo-Pacific the only aspect of undersea warfare and nuclear weapons that should trouble us: surface fleets, mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and so forth increase the danger of incidents at sea, and they could raise the potential for a nuclear crisis. Knowledgeable analysts are concerned that the next stage of the Indo-Pacific naval arms race will involve still more submarines with nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles. 

Three 'nots'

If regional actors (not just the states currently pursuing SSBNs but other concerned parties) are to act to avert further arms racing and stabilise the emerging undersea deterrent, they must recognise the situation for what it is. A nuclear arms race at sea is:

• Not simply a local or regional issue.
• Not simply a military issue.
• And not simply a navy or maritime issue.

A nuclear arms race at sea is a global problem with far-reaching implications for proliferation, conventional arms modernisation, and the possibility of arms control. The mere existence of such systems makes it more likely that the so-called nuclear taboo might finally be broken. An undersea nuclear race is deeply political because it affects the geopolitical rivalry among great and regional powers, not to mention alliance structures and patterns of regional governance.

 

For all regional military forces, such a nuclear arms race at sea is not simply the business of navies: SSBNs affect joint and combined operations in ways big and small, and blur important distinctions between conventional and nuclear systems. It is worrisome that despite some recent developments there has been, in general, asymmetric progress in developing weapons systems versus the C2, ISR, training/readiness, and nuclear doctrine necessary to deploy sea-based deterrent systems safely and reliably. 

 

Although prudence on the part of India, China and other regional powers may alleviate these concerns, it may not be sufficient for those interested in regional stability. In the end, although it is not fashionable to advocate for arms control much less naval arms control, strategists and policy makers should remember the words of Schelling and Halperin: 'the essential feature of arms control is the recognition of the common interest, of the possibility of reciprocation and cooperation even between potential enemies with respect to their militaries.' And, in the words of Robert Jervis, which seem especially prescient with regard to naval nuclear arms racing in the Indo-Pacific, 'because the security dilemma and crisis instability can exacerbate if not create conflicts, potential enemies will have an interest in developing arms control arrangements.'

INS Arihant reactor to be made critical next week

Moving towards completing its nuclear triad, India will activate the atomic reactor on-board the indigenous nuclear submarine INS Arihant next week paving way for its operational deployment by the Navy soon.

"We are gearing up for the sea trials of Arihant," DRDO chief V K Saraswat said today at an award function here.

"The nuclear reactor on-board the INS Arihant would be made critical (activated) in first week of June," sources said on the development of the nuclear submarine.

Nuclear triad is the ability to fire nuclear-tipped missiles from land, air and sea. After the nuclear reactor is activated, the agencies concerned can work towards readying the warship for operational deployments soon.

INS Arihant has been undergoing trials at Navy's key submarine base in Vishakhapatnam and would be launched for sea trials after the nuclear reactor goes critical.

The DRDO has also readied a medium-range nuclear missile BO-5 for being deployed on the Arihant and its last developmental trial was held on January 27 off the coast of Vishakhapatnam.

The nuclear submarine will help India achieve the capability of going into high seas without the need to surface the vessel for long durations.

Conventional diesel-electric submarines have to come up on surface at regular intervals for charging the cells of the vessel.

Russia sees opportunities in India’s new submarine deal

Rosoboronexport would be high among the competing companies for a $10 billion deal to supply new generation submarines.

India is set to loosen its purse strings for some big ticket arms acquisitions in the coming months. The latest order about to come out from the Indian repertoire is for submarines, which is going to be worth a whopping ten billion US dollars. The Russians will be close competitors for this deal and Rosoboronexport of Russia would be high up among the competing companies. Other serious contenders would be HDW of Germany and Navantia of Spain.

Earlier this year, India had released a 15 billion dollar defence deal which went to the French, much to the chagrin of the Russians and other players in the international arms market. In February 2012, India had awarded the highly lucrative deal worth $15 billion to the French company Dassault Aviation for 126 fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force.  The talks with Dassault on fastening the nuts and bolts of the deal are presently going on.

The upcoming defence deal is for the Indian Navy. It is aimed at buying six state-of-the-art submarines, mainly with an eye on China. The deal with Dassault for 126 fighter aircraft too was aimed at developing Indian defence capabilities vis-a-vis

China.

Project 75I

The Indian government is soon going to come up with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for six next generation submarines. Indian Navy Chief Admiral DK Joshi has gone on record as saying that the Defence Acquisition Council a high-powered body of the defence ministry, has already given the green signal for buying six submarines under a project codenamed P-75I and a global tender would be floated “very soon”.

This will be a huge opportunity and a challenge for the Russians to bag the deal because the RFP would be a global competitive bid process in which the winner takes all. The Russians and the French are expected to be among the top contenders. Both would have plus and minus points for getting the deal, and needless to say, no country would like to miss the bus.

Russia to Face Stiff Competition from France

Russia will inevitably face a stiff competition from the French for the new submarines deal. The French have an edge because they are already building six Scorpene submarines for India. The argument for them is that since they are already working on a submarine project with India it would be logical to have continuity as the French already have an elaborate infrastructure in place. But the flip side is that the upcoming $10 billion submarine deal would be a global competitive bid. It is like playing an entirely new match on a new turf where it would depend on which players emerge as performers of the day.

The Russian USP would be that India is already operating over a dozen Russian-made submarines and Russia is a tried, tested and trusted arms supplier for India. The latest order, as an when it materialises, is aimed at significantly beefing up the muscle of the Indian Navy whose existing humble submarine fleet comprises of just 10 Russian Kilo-class, four German HDWs and an Akula-2 nuclear-powered attack submarine leased from Russia at $1 billion. This will be in addition to the six Scorpene submarines which are being built in India with technology from Dassault under a project codenamed P-75.

A USP of the new to-be-ordered submarines, according to Admiral Joshi, would be that these would be bigger than the Scorpene  and would be equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems to recharge their batteries without having to surface for more than three weeks. Besides, the new boats would also have land attack missile capability.

INS Chakra’s Delimitations

The Indian submarine fleet got a valuable addition when INS Chakra, the nuclear submarine from Russia was finally inducted in April 2012, thus once again heralding the Indian Navy into the nuclear age after an interregnum of two decades. However there is a flip side to INS Chakra, the Akula-2 class submarine given by Russia to India on a lease for ten years. INS Chakra cannot be armed with strategic weapons or nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. Its symbolic importance is that it will certainly help India keep a watchful eye on the vast expanse of Indian Ocean which of late has emerged as the epicentre of global naval activities.

India, a principal littoral state with fourth largest naval fleet in the world, needs to have a robust navy in Indian Ocean and beyond considering the rapid advancements of the Chinese Navy. China is stepping up its naval presence in the Indian Ocean though it is not an Indian Ocean power. China has almost five dozen submarines, including a dozen nuclear submarines, which give them a head start over India in naval terms.

The Russian Edge

The upcoming RFP for the six submarines is aimed at correcting this anomaly.  India, which at one point of time had 18 submarines, is now down to just 14 submarines, including ten Sindhughosh class Russian Kilo submarines and four Shishumar class German HDW diesel submarines. For 17 years India did not construct indigenous submarines. Further bad news from the Indian perspective is that its submarine fleet is expected to go down to half as the Kilo class submarines acquired in late eighties are facing retirement after two and half  decades  of service.

Under the six-submarine Scorpene deal, India is expecting to get the first two submarines in 2014 and 2015. The delivery schedule for all the six boats is likely to be completed by 2019. But the flip side is that the first two out of six would be simple diesel submarines and the next four would be equipped with Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology called MESMA in French parlance.

This is where the Russians can smell the kill for the new $10 billion submarine deal. While the Scorpene deal with the French did not focus on the AIP technology, the proposed deal would have all six submarines equipped with AIP technology.  The Russian engineers have already mastered the AIP technology, in vogue for the past one decade. India has retained Russian engineers since 2011 in Vishakhapatnam to understand complex operational aspects of a nuclear powered submarine.

Nuclear weapons: Brazil and the no nukes option

Although Brazil renounced nuclear weapons, it’s nuclear submarine joint venture with France will guard its 3000 miles of Atlantic coast and is a logical extension of its rise as a global power. A diesel/electric powered submarines ordered to DCNS by the Brazilian Navy (Marinha Brasileira-MB).

Brazil’s acquisition of six nuclear submarines raises the issue of nuclear proliferation in a region of the world that renounced the use of nuclear weapons. But not in the way most casual observers would think. First, to set the record straight, the Brazil nuclear submarine joint venture with France will guard its 3000 miles of Atlantic coast and is a logical extension of its rise as a global power. After all, Brazil’s extensive national wealth lies below the ocean floor.

Second, the nuclear reactors used in the submarines will be built by Brazil and coordinated through a new state-owned company, Blue Amazon Defense Technologies or Amazul. These reactors use low-enriched uranium, the same used in French submarines. The decision to use this type of nuclear fuel enables enrichment and manufacturing in its civilian plants. As such, the submarines are not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of which Brazil is a party. Brazil’s 1988 constitution affirms the use of nuclear materials for peaceful purposes, but specifically renounces their use in arms.

Nuclear weapons a means to gain respect

Still, this episode helps illustrate one of the reasons that the Americas are frequently considered the geopolitical equivalent of Rodney Dangerfield comedies, in that “they don’t get no respect.” In today’s world, having weapons of mass destruction is a way to get attention if not respect. Think Pakistan, where the United States continues to pour billions in foreign assistance into a fragile state that seems perpetually on the verge of imploding, yet possesses the capacity to blow up neighboring India, not to mention parts of Central Asia. North Korea and its farcical government might be easily dismissed, if it were not for its nuclear brinkmanship. And then there are Iran’s apocalyptic mullahs.

When policy experts who work in the Americas complain that the region is neglected by major powers, they probably never consider that it might be because, in part, the region swore off nukes with the Treaty of Tlatelolco, signed 45 years ago in Mexico City. The Americas, save for the United States and Canada, is a nuclear free zone. And no nation in Latin America or the Caribbean, not even Venezuela, has shown any overt sign of acquiring nuclear weapons, although transnational crime, international terrorist networks and weak border controls leave a gap for shipping nuclear devices across borders.

There is another side of the coin that also encourages major powers to be dismissive—the need among some of the region’s leaders to get attention by grandstanding. Some taunt the concept of western democracy by suspending civil liberties, expropriating private industry, enriching cronies through corruption, or even backing international pariah states at such forums as the Non-Aligned Movement.

Latin America chooses peaceful resolution over nuclear weapons

Still, the American states are part of the global community, no longer the junior partner in a relationship dominated by the United States. The challenge ahead will be to promote a more responsible approach to regional problems we all face that go beyond our borders—crime, climate change, migration, trafficking, pandemics and more. Eleven countries in the hemisphere have signed on to the 2003 Proliferation Security Initiative that seeks cooperation in interdicting nuclear and other threatening arms concealed on ships and planes. In similar spirit, governments might embrace new multilateral arrangements that offer the region and our own country peaceful means of resolving problems, while also promoting a deeper partnership for the combating future threats.

In the final analysis, we should never forget that a region without nuclear weapons gives us common ground to build more constructive partnerships around other goals—stronger democratic governance, access to justice, and opportunities for workers to become educated to meet future economic needs. The hemisphere’s policymakers should consider how to riff off the success of a 45-year-old idea—a nuclear free zone—to create the Americas as a zone of peace, equality, justice and self-fulfillment for all citizens. That would be the way to get respect from the major powers.

India's first nuclear submarine set for trials

India on Wednesday said its first home-built nuclear submarine was set for sea trials, as it detailed billion-dollar projects to arm its navy with warships, aircraft and modern weaponry.

The indigenous 6,000-ton INS Arihant (Destroyer of Enemies) was unveiled in 2009 as part of a project to construct five such vessels which would be armed with nuclear-tipped missiles and torpedoes.

"Arihant is steadily progressing towards operationalisation, and we hope to commence sea trials in the coming months," Indian navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma told reporters.

"Our maritime and nuclear doctrine will then be aligned to ensure that our nuclear insurance comes from the sea," Verma said, Arihant is powered by an 85-megawatt nuclear reactor and can reach 44 kilometres an hour (24 knots), according to defence officials. It will carry a 95-member crew.

The Indian navy inducted a Russian-leased nuclear submarine into service in April this year, joining China, France, the United States, Britain and Russia in the elite club of countries with nuclear-powered vessels.

Verma said 43 warships were currently under construction at local shipyards while the first of six Franco-Spanish Scorpene submarines under contract would join the Indian navy in 2015 and the sixth by 2018.

The admiral said the navy was also poised to induct eight Boeing long-range maritime reconnaissance P-8I aircraft next year.

India quietly gate crashes into submarine-launched ballistic missiles club?

India in April yanked open the door of the exclusive ICBM ( intercontinental ballistic missile) club with the first test of Agni-V. Now, if DRDO is to be believed, India has quietly gate-crashed into an even more exclusive club of nuclear-tipped submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

The annual awards function of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) on Tuesday will see PM Manmohan Singh hand over the ``technology leadership award'' to a scientist, A K Chakrabarti of the Hyderabad-based DRDL lab, for the ``successful development'' of the country's first SLBM.

``Apart from India, this capability has been acquired only by four nations, the US, Russia, France and China. Now, the SLBM system is ready for induction,'' says the award citation.

Long shrouded in secrecy as a ``black project'', unlike the surface-to-surface nuclear missiles like Agni, the SLBM may now finally come out of the closet. Called different names at different developmental phases, which included ``Sagarika'' for an extended period, the SLBM in question is the ``K-15'' missile with a 750-km strike range.

Celebrations, however, may be a little premature. Much like the over 5,000-km Agni-V that will be fully operational only by 2015 after four-to-five ``repeatable tests'', the K-15 is also still some distance away from being deployed.

While the SLBM may be fully-ready and undergoing production now, as DRDO contends after conducting its test several times from submersible pontoons, its carrier INS Arihant will take at least a year before it's ready for ``deterrent patrols''.

India's first indigenous nuclear-powered submarine, the 6,000-tonne INS Arihant, is still undergoing ``harbor-acceptance trials'' with all its pipelines being cleared and tested meticulously on shore-based steam before its miniature 83 MW pressurized light-water reactor goes ``critical''.

The submarine will then undergo extensive ``sea-acceptance trials'' and test-fire the 10-tonne K-15, which can carry a one-tonne nuclear payload, from the missile silos on its hump.

Only then will India's missing third leg of the nuclear triad - the ability to fire nukes from land, air and sea - be in place. INS Arihant has four silos on its hump to carry either 12 K-15s or four of the 3,500-km range K-4 missiles undergoing tests at the moment. The first two legs revolve around the Agni missiles and fighters like Sukhoi-30MKIs and Mirage-2000s jury-rigged to deliver nuclear warheads.

The sea-based nuclear leg in the shape of SLBMs is much more effective — as also survivable being relatively immune to pre-emptive strikes — than the air or land ones. Nuclear-powered submarines, which are capable of operating silently underwater for months at end, armed with nuclear-tipped missiles are, therefore, considered the most potent and credible leg of the triad.

With even the US and Russia ensuring that two-thirds of the strategic warheads they eventually retain under arms reduction agreements will be SLBMs, India with a clear ``no-first use'' nuclear doctrine needs such survivable second-strike capability to achieve credible strategic deterrence.

Iran able to design reactor to power ships, submarines: AEOI director

Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Director Fereydoun Abbasi has said that Iran is able to design the nuclear reactors needed to power the ships and submarines that it plans to equip with nuclear propulsion systems.

“We have no special plan in this regard, but of course, we have the capability to design reactors to (power) vessels,” Abbasi told reporters on Sunday when asked about a plan recently approved by the Majlis Industries and Mines Committee which calls for Iranian oceangoing tankers and other commercial ships to be powered by nuclear fuel in order to eliminate their need to be refueled while on long voyages.

The plan is said to be a response to the West’s anti-Iranian sanctions. The parliament must endorse the plan before it can be implemented.

Abbasi said, “If need be and the government of the Islamic Republic makes a decision in this regard, and if it is the people’s demand, we in the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran have no problem in pursuing this plan.”

He also said that if Iran needs uranium enriched to a purity level of higher than 20 percent in order to fuel nuclear-powered ships and submarines, it will inform the International Atomic Energy Agency of its need so that the agency can facilitate the process of supplying the country with the required nuclear fuel.

At present, Iran has no intention of producing nuclear fuel enriched to a purity level higher than 20 percent, he added.  

The deputy commander of the Iranian Navy has also announced that Iran plans to build nuclear-powered submarines.

In an interview with the Persian service of the Fars News Agency published on June 12, Rear Admiral Abbas Zamini said that the Iranian Navy is planning to design and manufacture nuclear-powered submarines, adding, “We are now in the early stages of the project to build nuclear submarines.”

Elsewhere in his remarks, the AEOI director announced that the fourth set of domestically produced nuclear fuel plates has been delivered to the operator of the Tehran research reactor, which produces radioisotopes for cancer treatment. 

The first two sets of nuclear fuel plates were delivered on May 22.

Abbasi said that the newly delivered nuclear fuel plates are currently undergoing final tests.

Commenting on the process of talks between Iran and the 5+1 group (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) over the country’s nuclear program, he said, “We welcome negotiations under any circumstances, but we resist sanctions.”

On the expert meeting held by Iran and the 5+1 group in Istanbul on July 3, Abbasi said that they did not present substantive arguments during the technical talks, “so they were given the necessary time to go and think and stop their mischievous acts.”

“We will firmly stick to our stances, and continue the talks to achieve a rational solution,” he added.

Women in Nuclear group takes tour of attack sub at Port

Women get inside tour of nuclear sub: A group of women got to tour the nuclear submarine USS Missouri on Wednesday at the Naval Ordinance Test Unit at Port Canaveral.

About 45 in the Women in Nuclear group toured the USS Missouri submarine at the Trident Basin at Port Canaveral on Wednesday. The women entered the sub thru the foreward hatch.

About the group

The U.S. Women in Nuclear organization was established in May 1999 with these strategic objectives:

• Support an environment in nuclear energy and nuclear technologies in which women and men are able to succeed.
•  
• Provide a network through which the women and men in these fields can further their professional development.
•  
• Provide an organized association through which the public is informed about nuclear energy and nuclear technologies.

U.S. Women in Nuclear is the premier network of more than 5,000 women and men who work in nuclear- and radiation-related fields around the country.

PORT CANAVERAL — Women who work in the nuclear industry had a treat Wednesday as they learned about an alternative application of their field.

Offered as a side trip from the U.S. Women in Nuclear annual conference in Orlando, about 40 women who are used to working with power plants and engineering companies toured the USS Missouri — a nuclear attack submarine commissioned July 31, 2010 — while docked at the Naval Ordnance Test Unit.

Submariners explained the ship’s operations to groups of about six or eight women at a time.

“Everything is so big in scale that we do,” said Kara Lukehart, who works for URS, an engineering and construction company. “We’re so focused on our application that it’s so enlightening to see other applications.”

The women huddled in the glare of the display screens where sailors operate sonar, communications and weapons systems aboard the submarine. They also toured the galley, the torpedo room and the tight living quarters to which the submariners must get accustomed.

Lukehart said even though there are big differences in scale to power plants, the same principles apply to operating the nuclear submarine in many ways. Safety and training are guiding principles.

Jennifer Henning, a mechanical and chemical engineer who works for Enercon in Atlanta, said the tour of the submarine was a treat.

“Most of the work I do, I do at a desk,” she said. “I get to make visits to (nuclear) plants. There are a lot of similarities.”

Katie Damratoski, a communications specialist for Entergy, said the visit to NOTU ranked among the top activities for the people who attended the Women in Nuclear annual conference.

“This is awesome,” she said. “I’m fascinated. I have great respect for what (the submariners) do.”

U.S. Women in Nuclear is a network of more than 5,000 women and men who work in nuclear-related fields around the country. Members of the group toured Kennedy Space Center and the Crystal River Nuclear Plant, about 80 miles north of Tampa, in addition to the Naval Ordnance Test Unit and the USS Missouri.

Lt. Cmdr. Dave Rogers, the executive officer on the submarine, said it was a good opportunity to have the visitors on the USS Missouri.

“We’re kind of invisible most of the time,” he said. “It helps us. It’s a sense of personal satisfaction. It’s rewarding and reassuring.”

Rogers said it’s also good for the crew to come into Port Canaveral and Brevard County, where people are always so welcoming.

“We’re excited every time we get to pull into Port Canaveral,” he said. It’s one of my favorite ports on the East Coast.”

Wales - First Minister draws a line under nuclear arguement

FIRST MINISTER Carwyn Jones has said that the argument over the potential move of nuclear missile submarines from Scotland to Milford Haven is “entirely academic.”

Mr Jones appeared keen to draw a line under the row which began last month when he suddenly told assembly members that the nuclear missile Vanguard-class submarine fleet and the associated jobs would “be more than welcome” in Milford Haven.

A Welsh Government spokesman later said: “The First Minister recognises the substantial economic benefits of relocating Britain’s nuclear submarines to west Wales.”

That had kick-started heated debate about whether the submarines and their nuclear missiles could or should ever be based in the Haven waterway.

But after weeks of questioning, petitions and rumours of behind-thescenes discontent among the Labour front bench in Cardiff, Mr Jones seemed to want to move on when asked about the issue at First Minister’s questions last week.

“It’s quite clear from the UK Government that the fleet will remain at Faslane, so the issue is now entirely academic,”