Experts warn Joe Biden supplying nuclear submarines to Australia threatens US security
Malcolm Turnbull says reactor not a ‘plug and play’ power pack as former US officials raise national security concerns
The prime minister Scott Morrison (left) meets with US president Joe Biden. There are concerns the Aukus deal between Australia, the US and the UK could embolden hostile nations to seek out highly enriched uranium. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
There is growing pressure on the new Aukus partners to scrap plans to use weapons-grade uranium on submarines.
A group of former US officials and experts has written to the US president, Joe Biden, warning the deal could threaten US national security by encouraging hostile nations to obtain highly enriched uranium (HEU).
At the same time, the former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull says if Australia does buy the submarine reactors without a domestic nuclear industry – and therefore the nuclear expertise – it will be “more plug and pray” than “plug and play”.
The former Nato deputy secretary general Rose Gottemoeller has called on Australia to make a new deal with France to use their uranium, which is not weapons grade. That would heal the rift with France and ease nuclear proliferation fears, she said.
In the letter to Biden, the seven signatories called on him to commit to using low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is what the French use in their submarine program.
“The Aukus deal to supply Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines fuelled with weapons-grade uranium could have serious negative impacts on the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and thereby on US national security,” wrote the group, which includes former White House officials.
At the heart of their concern is that if Australia, as a non-nuclear country, gets HEU then other countries would use that example to justify their own acquisition of the material.
Iranian officials intimated to the UN that, like Australia, they might want HEU for naval purposes.
France described Australia’s decision to ditch the $90bn submarine project in favour of the Aukus deal as a “stab in the back”, while Australia has argued that switching to nuclear-propelled submarines is strategically necessary.
There will now be an 18-month process to work out the details of the deal, which has come under heavy criticism.
Turnbull told Guardian Australia that the government should have stuck with the French deal, bought an initial three diesel-electric boats, then switched to their LEU technology.
That would be the “honest and straightforward” course, and would speed up the process because crews would already train in a very similar boat.
“(And) we wouldn’t have double-crossed France and destroyed people’s trust in Australia,” he added.
There is growing pressure on the new Aukus partners to scrap plans to use weapons-grade uranium on submarines.
A group of former US officials and experts has written to the US president, Joe Biden, warning the deal could threaten US national security by encouraging hostile nations to obtain highly enriched uranium (HEU).
At the same time, the former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull says if Australia does buy the submarine reactors without a domestic nuclear industry – and therefore the nuclear expertise – it will be “more plug and pray” than “plug and play”.
The former Nato deputy secretary general Rose Gottemoeller has called on Australia to make a new deal with France to use their uranium, which is not weapons grade. That would heal the rift with France and ease nuclear proliferation fears, she said.
In the letter to Biden, the seven signatories called on him to commit to using low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is what the French use in their submarine program.
“The Aukus deal to supply Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines fuelled with weapons-grade uranium could have serious negative impacts on the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and thereby on US national security,” wrote the group, which includes former White House officials.
At the heart of their concern is that if Australia, as a non-nuclear country, gets HEU then other countries would use that example to justify their own acquisition of the material.
Iranian officials intimated to the UN that, like Australia, they might want HEU for naval purposes.
France described Australia’s decision to ditch the $90bn submarine project in favour of the Aukus deal as a “stab in the back”, while Australia has argued that switching to nuclear-propelled submarines is strategically necessary.
There will now be an 18-month process to work out the details of the deal, which has come under heavy criticism.
Turnbull told Guardian Australia that the government should have stuck with the French deal, bought an initial three diesel-electric boats, then switched to their LEU technology.
That would be the “honest and straightforward” course, and would speed up the process because crews would already train in a very similar boat.
“(And) we wouldn’t have double-crossed France and destroyed people’s trust in Australia,” he added.
Malcolm Turnbull says nuclear rectors are ‘not like Makita power packs’. Photograph: Joel Carrett/AAP
He said one of the reasons Australia had chosen France over Germany and Japan was the possibility of transitioning to nuclear.
Turnbull said it was wrong to think Australia could build and operate a submarine with an HEU reactor without a whole nuclear industry, because you can’t just plug them in like batteries.
“They’re not like Makita power packs,” he said. “It’d be more plug and pray than plug and play.”
The French ambassador Jean-Pierre Thebault was recalled to Paris in mid-September because of the “exceptional seriousness” of the decision. He is set to return to Australia soon, to “redefine” the relationship between the two countries and defend France’s interests, according to foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, said on Thursday that the relationship between Australia and France was “bigger than a contract”.
“So it’s a matter of basically picking up on all the things we were working on and continuing on with them because they’re very significant,” he said. “We look forward to just getting on with that job.”
Gottemoeller said it was possible for Australia to get “the silent, long-running submarines it needs” while still having France as a partner in the Indo-Pacific.
“The irony is that the French have been building and operating submarines for years on low-enriched uranium, which is not a danger for proliferation, and I would think would ease this problem if again the French were at the table and talking about how to best build nuclear submarines for Australia,” she told the Back Story podcast.
Asked whether Biden should think again, she said “I think it would be worthwhile for not only president Biden but [UK prime minister] Boris Johnson, Morrison in Australia, and president [Emmanuel] Macron to think again … about how they can do a better deal that won’t endanger the non-proliferation regime,” she said.
Australia had considered switching to a French nuclear-powered submarine. With LEU power, the reactor is bigger and has to be taken out and replaced about every 10 years.
Australia rejected that in favour of the US technology, which lasts the life of the submarine – about 30 years. Morrison has said Australia won’t need a nuclear industry because the reactor will be made overseas then put into the Australian-built boat.
He said one of the reasons Australia had chosen France over Germany and Japan was the possibility of transitioning to nuclear.
Turnbull said it was wrong to think Australia could build and operate a submarine with an HEU reactor without a whole nuclear industry, because you can’t just plug them in like batteries.
“They’re not like Makita power packs,” he said. “It’d be more plug and pray than plug and play.”
The French ambassador Jean-Pierre Thebault was recalled to Paris in mid-September because of the “exceptional seriousness” of the decision. He is set to return to Australia soon, to “redefine” the relationship between the two countries and defend France’s interests, according to foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, said on Thursday that the relationship between Australia and France was “bigger than a contract”.
“So it’s a matter of basically picking up on all the things we were working on and continuing on with them because they’re very significant,” he said. “We look forward to just getting on with that job.”
Gottemoeller said it was possible for Australia to get “the silent, long-running submarines it needs” while still having France as a partner in the Indo-Pacific.
“The irony is that the French have been building and operating submarines for years on low-enriched uranium, which is not a danger for proliferation, and I would think would ease this problem if again the French were at the table and talking about how to best build nuclear submarines for Australia,” she told the Back Story podcast.
Asked whether Biden should think again, she said “I think it would be worthwhile for not only president Biden but [UK prime minister] Boris Johnson, Morrison in Australia, and president [Emmanuel] Macron to think again … about how they can do a better deal that won’t endanger the non-proliferation regime,” she said.
Australia had considered switching to a French nuclear-powered submarine. With LEU power, the reactor is bigger and has to be taken out and replaced about every 10 years.
Australia rejected that in favour of the US technology, which lasts the life of the submarine – about 30 years. Morrison has said Australia won’t need a nuclear industry because the reactor will be made overseas then put into the Australian-built boat.
I remember I was on my first trip to Australia some 37 years ago right during the aftermath of another French underground nuclear test in Muroroa Atoll.
ReplyDeleteThe French basically gave a Froggie middle finger to the Aussies and the Kiwis protesting the nuclear explosions, saying it was just an internal French national security matter, which Australia and New Zealand had no right to interfere.
A year later, 1985, the Rainbow Warrior was sunk in Auckland Harbour by French intelligence agents, to prevent the ship from sailing to the South Pacific to protest the French Nuclear Tests.
So...it is worth remembering when France considers what it regards as its own vital National Security interests, it has no compunction to Fuck the Aussies and the Kiwis.
U scold the French but conveniently ignore the same nuclear testings around Marshall islands till this day!
DeleteBravo!
Now, rollovers & plays dead at the corner far far away.
United States Nuckear testing in the Marshall Islands ended in 1954.
DeleteThe Rainbow Warrior sinking, related to the France Muroroa Atoll Tests , was 31 years later in 1985.
Nuclear testings ended in 1954!
DeleteThat's what US has been telling the world since 54.
A question HOW did yr uncle Sam improve on his nuclear arsenals that have passed their self life?
Wakakakaka… go read the latest disclosure of the US nuclear stockpile that is been displayed by all major news media of the world.
How about searching for Regan missile test site that still operation on Kwajalein Atoll (on multiple islands), Wake Island, and Aur Atoll within the Marshall islands.
Ooop… ditto with Diego Garcia.
U do expect yr uncle Sam to honrstly telling the world what he did 'last Christmas' around these remote islands where the nuclear blasts would be masqueraded as undersea volcano activities.
Ooop… don't forget too about the dumping of nuclear wastes around these locations too by yr uncle Sam.
The USA has for decades mastered the Physics and the Supercomputing power to improve the yield of its nuclear warheads.
DeleteAfter 1954, underground testing only was done in Nevada, and the Yanks haven't exploded ANY nuclear devices since 1992.
The Kwajalien MISSILE (not nuclear bomb) test range is used to test both missile experiments and missile defence development.
The type of technology akin to stopping a bullet with another bullet.
So u believed what yr uncle Sam's official fart!
DeleteThe precisely tuned nuclear reactor core must be confirmed via experiments. No any advanced physics or supercomputer simulations could accurately determine that ratio.
The thermalnuclear threshold of the ignitions r different for each country via their own physical testing tweaks!
BTW, this is also the reason WHY there r ONLY 5 hydrogen bomb owning countries.
It's an unspoken secret of these countries that in order to maintain their nuclear arsenals, due to decaying shelf life of the nuclear core, periodic physical testings r unavoidable!
Wakakakaka… know nothing fart!
5000 yo Bully had “gifted” weapons grade uranium to Pakistan back in 1982, FORTY YEARS AGO. Nobody complained?
ReplyDeleteQUOTE
China Supplied Weapon-Grade Uranium to Pakistan, Khan Asserts
Nov 13, 2009
A newly released statement by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist and proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan indicates that China in 1982 supplied his nation with a basic nuclear-weapon design and enough weapon-grade uranium to power two nuclear bombs, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Sept. 24).
"Upon my personal request, the Chinese minister ... had gifted us 50 kg (kilograms) of weapon-grade enriched uranium, enough for two weapons," as part of a nuclear pact reached years before by Chinese leader Mao Zedong and Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Khan wrote after admitting in early 2004 to spreading nuclear data to Iran, Libya and North Korea (see GSN, Oct. 5).
Khan and two other Pakistani officials had years earlier provided Chinese counterparts with schematics produced in Europe for an advanced uranium enrichment centrifuge, the scientist wrote in a five-page outline of Islamabad's nuclear cooperation with Beijing.
"Chinese experts started coming regularly to learn the whole technology," which was intended to boost China's enrichment capacity for producing nuclear-weapon material. Personnel from Pakistan helped to "put up a centrifuge plant" in China," according to Khan: "We sent 135 C-130 plane loads of machines, inverters, valves, flow meters, pressure gauges. ... Our teams stayed there for weeks to help and their teams stayed here for weeks at a time."
In exchange, Pakistan received 15 tons of Chinese uranium hexafluoride, an intermediate product in the enrichment process.
Using the material in its gas centrifuges, Pakistan was able to begin production of weapon-grade uranium in 1982. Fear that Israel or India might launch airstrikes on Pakistan's nuclear facilities, though, prompted Islamabad to request a loan of highly enriched uranium from Beijing that same year, Khan wrote.
Pakistan stored the uranium for three years, then offered to return the material after producing several nuclear weapons with uranium produced indigenously.
In response, Beijing said "that the HEU loaned earlier was now to be considered as a gift ... in gratitude" for Islamabad's earlier nuclear assistance, according to Khan. Pakistan quickly converted the material into cores for two nuclear weapons, he said…..
…. Khan's statements confirmed longstanding U.S. intelligence conclusions about China's nuclear collaboration with Pakistan, government sources said.
UNQUOTE
Wakakakakaka…
Delete"China Supplied Weapon-Grade Uranium to Pakistan, Khan ASSERTS"
!! Asserts?
"Chinese experts started coming regularly to learn the whole technology"
"Personnel from Pakistan helped to "put up a centrifuge plant" in China," according to Khan: "We sent 135 C-130 plane loads of machines, inverters, valves, flow meters, pressure gauges"
135 C-130 plane loads!??
Which country, amongst the two, has the HOMEGROWN nuclear capability first?
Wakakakaka… aneh-ized fart!
Only a blurred dickhead would buy into the story of refining uranium hexafluoride into enriched uranium based on paki's nuclear capability then!
Truly f*cked c&p pick of non brainer!
"Khan and two other Pakistani officials had years earlier provided Chinese counterparts with schematics produced in Europe for an advanced uranium enrichment centrifuge, the scientist wrote in a five-page outline of Islamabad's nuclear cooperation with Beijing.
Delete"Chinese experts started coming regularly to learn the whole technology," which was intended to boost China's enrichment capacity for producing nuclear-weapon material. Personnel from Pakistan helped to "put up a centrifuge plant" in China," according to Khan: "We sent 135 C-130 plane loads of machines, inverters, valves, flow meters, pressure gauges. ... Our teams stayed there for weeks to help and their teams stayed here for weeks at a time"???
TS, you're too eff-ing reckless in your kerbau-ing lah, wakakaka
Looks like Pakistan and China made an alliance of Devils.
DeleteThe People's Republic of China at the time lacked the Advanced technology for Weapons-Grade Uranium Enrichment. Pakistan had stolen the technology from Europeans , but lacked the Nuclear industrial base to actually manufacture the Weapons-Grade Enriched uranium.
So the two Demons made a pact Made in Hell to help each other.
Old moneyed mfer, did u read the text carefully before u fart?
DeleteOn 16 October 1964, the People's Republic of China conducted its first successful nuclear test. Then on 17 June 1967, the People's Republic of China conducted its first hydrogen thermonuclear test.
Pakistan successfully tested his first atomic bomb on 28 May 1998.
From these chronological events, did China need Pakistan's help to refine her high grade uranium used in the hydrogen bomb?
BTW, up till now there r ONLY 5 countries in the world that have hydrogen thermonuclear bomb!
If u wanted to lie, dig deeper & clear yr f*cking China-bashing biasness only then can yr f*cking lie could be more believable!
I wouldn't bother explaining to those anti-Asian dukes, wakakaka
Deletehttps://youtu.be/aw3n8zYzJDY
ReplyDeleteAt least Sing media is reporting the facts as is, and reporting Taiwan's side if the story, without playing Beijing balls-carrier.
Unlike so many other Asian media, including Malaysia.
Wakakakaka…
DeleteU read news?
Or u only read selected news?
The political diarrhea by that female bullfrog has been chanted loud & clear multiple times recently.
Yet most of the press, including many western loudmouths, r just treating it as jingo - not least that CNA reporting!
Yr claimed fact is perhaps yr own overestimate of that weighted cesspool concentrate.