Is Nuclear Propulsion for Civilian Maritime Vessels a Security Risk?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential use of nuclear propulsion for civilian maritime vessels, exploring historical context, technical challenges, and security implications. Participants reference past research programs and debate the feasibility and risks associated with nuclear-powered ships.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention a historical research program aimed at developing nuclear-powered aircraft, noting that shielding issues led to its abandonment.
  • There is a reference to the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program and its connection to long-range bombers designed for military purposes.
  • Some argue that nuclear propulsion for aircraft and rockets was set aside due to advancements in chemical propulsion systems and the reduction in size of thermonuclear warheads.
  • Participants discuss the current use of nuclear power in military vessels, particularly submarines and aircraft carriers, contrasting this with the abandonment of commercial nuclear power for ships.
  • One participant points out that Russia operates nuclear-powered icebreakers, but these are classified as naval vessels rather than civilian maritime ships.
  • Concerns are raised about the security, safety, and proliferation risks associated with civilian nuclear vessels, particularly regarding their vulnerability to hijacking.
  • A question is posed regarding the validity of these security concerns in the context of developing civilian maritime nuclear vessels.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and security implications of nuclear propulsion for civilian maritime vessels, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the historical context of nuclear propulsion research, the specific definitions of civilian versus naval vessels, and the unresolved nature of security concerns related to nuclear maritime technology.

RISHIKESAN02
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Investigate the potential for the use of a nuclear fuel source for aircraft propulsion: If anybody have related document and ideas please post it
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
About fifty years ago there was a major research program to develop a nuclear powered airplane. The problem of shielding was too big and the program eventually died.
 
mathman said:
About fifty years ago there was a major research program to develop a nuclear powered airplane. The problem of shielding was too big and the program eventually died.

Are you referring to the program that eventually turned out the XB-70 Valkyrie?
 
My understanding of the project was the nuclear engines were part of the WS-110A program. The point of the program was to make a long range, high endurance, high altitude and high speed bombers to penetrate USSR airspace. The nuclear engines were abandoned when high energy jet fuel (JP-6) was developed.
 
Nuclear propulsion for aircraft and rockets was abandoned because more efficient chemical propuslion systems were developed, and the thermonuclear warheads were reduced in size and mass. Note that commercial nuclear power for ships was also abandoned, but the navy uses is for submarines and aircraft carriers because of the 'essentially' unlimited range.

Some insight into the politics - http://www.megazone.org/ANP/politics.shtml
 
Astronuc said:
Note that commercial nuclear power for ships was also abandoned,

Actually Russia still has something like half a dozen nuclear-powered icebreakers.
 
QuantumPion said:
Actually Russia still has something like half a dozen nuclear-powered icebreakers.
True, but they are Naval or Coast Guard I believe. I was referring to Civilian Maritime, rather than Naval vessels.

Naval vessels are normally capable of defending themselves against highjacking. It's a security, safety and proliferation concern.
 
  • #10
Astronuc said:
True, but they are Naval or Coast Guard I believe. I was referring to Civilian Maritime, rather than Naval vessels.

Naval vessels are normally capable of defending themselves against highjacking. It's a security, safety and proliferation concern.
Is that a valid concern in your view, given the creation of a civilian maritime nuclear vessel?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
16K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
18K
Replies
17
Views
9K