The British experience with nuclear submarines reveals a litany of public health risks as well as delays and cost blowouts, and it can confidently be predicted that problems will beset the AUKUS submarine programme ‒ the joint development of nuclear-powered submarines by the UK, the US and Australia.
My new report prepared for Friends of the Earth Australia demonstrates that the development of a nuclear-powered, conventionally-armed nuclear submarine (SSN) fleet entails multiple public health risks and would inevitably suffer from delays and cost-blowouts.
Operational risks of SSN deployment include radiological pollution of marine and coastal environments and wildlife; risks of radioactivity doses to coastal populations; and the serious risk of dangerous collisions between civilian vessels and SSNs, especially in the approaches to busy naval and civilian sea ways and fishing grounds.
Building this big complicated thing is complicated!
If only there was some way we could share the risks with a few other countries. Maybe even someone who’s tried it and fucked it up.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social 6 days ago
What's funny to me is that if you ask most people about doing asteroid mining they'll tell you that it's science fiction. But if you ask them about a machine that can stay underwater for five years they know exactly what you're talking about.
maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 6 days ago
Huh?
DagwoodIII@piefed.social 6 days ago
There are many things that are technologically possible but we don't have them because they are seen as being impractical.
Nuclear subs use all the tech that would be needed for a space colony.