Nuclear

Friends of the Earth Adelaide > Nuclear

Pine Gap’s role in China–US arms race makes Australia a target

April 23, 2022

Some idea of the growing importance of Pine Gap to the US is given by its extraordinary growth. Initially, it was a ground station for a single satellite to gather what’s called signals intelligence while orbiting 36,000 kilometres above Earth. There are now at least four much more powerful satellites connected to the base. Their antennas automatically intercept everything transmitted within their frequency range. This includes a huge array of electronic signals for intelligence analysis, including text messages, emails, phone calls and much more. In addition, ground-based antennas at Pine Gap and other Australian sites intercept a vast volume of information transmitted via commercial satellites.

Pine Gap’s own satellites also intercept signals from radars and weapon systems, such as surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, fighter planes, drones and space vehicles, along with other military and civilian communications. From Pine Gap, a vast volume of military data is fed into the US war fighting machine in real time.

Pine Gap operates in conjunction with similar intercept satellites linked to a base at Menwith Hill in England. Their use in directing botched drone strikes that have killed a large number of civilians has been highly contentious in England. The combined coverage of the two bases includes the former Soviet Union, China, South-East Asia, east Asia, the Middle East, eastern Europe and the Atlantic landmass.

[…] Together, this access to signals and infrared intelligence, and its location in relation to China, gives Pine Gap a crucial role in US plans for fighting wars in space. This capability will be improved by a new space-based detection and tracking system called Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared (Next-Gen OPIR).

On April 6 the AUKUS pact leaders – Boris Johnson, Scott Morrison and Joe Biden – announced they would develop hypersonic missiles and subsurface robots after earlier promising to provide Australia with nuclear attack submarines starting from about 2040.

… Read more >>

Nuclear, Old_Notes, Weapons proliferation

Public comment on EPBC Act referral

March 19, 2022

Referral:
EPBC 2021/9128 — National Radioactive Waste Management Facility NRWMF, SA
Submission by Philip White, Friends of the Earth Adelaide

Introduction

In response to the question raised in the Minister for the Environment’s invitation for comments, the proposed action is a controlled action. It is acknowledged as such by the proponent, the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA).

Establishing that fact may be the formal aim of this particular part of the assessment process, but, before the proposal can proceed, it must be subjected to a full public Environmental Impact Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
It should not be approved based solely on documentation provided by ARWA, or anything less than an Environmental Impact Assessment, for reasons including the following:

  • The wastes that will be stored and/or disposed of need to be isolated from the environment for thousands of years. The long timescale greatly increases the opportunity for foreseen and unforeseen environmental impacts.

  • The transport of radioactive waste over thousands of kilometres represents a serious environmental hazard. Besides problems related to mishandling, there is the potential for various types of transport accidents. Radioactive waste shipments are also potential targets of theft, terrorism, or even, as we are currently seeing in Ukraine, acts of war.

  • The fact that the Barngarla traditional owners are opposed to the plan makes it even more important that aboriginal heritage issues are thoroughly addressed.

Recommendations

1. The referral should be rejected because (a) it is clearly opposed by the Barngarla people, the Traditional Custodians, and (b) there are better alternatives that have not been presented for consideration.

2. If, despite the arguments in recommendation 1 for rejecting the referral outright, the Minister decides not to reject the referral, it should not be accepted in its current form, based on s74A of the EPBC Act, which allows the Minister to not accept a referral if it is a component of a larger action.… Read more >>

FoE, Nuclear, Old_Notes

Morrison says sub deal won’t lead to nuclear power push in Australia. Don’t believe him

September 20, 2021

Prime minister Scott Morrison insisted on Thursday morning that the landmark nuclear submarine deal struck with US president Joe Biden and UK prime minister Boris Johnson won’t translate into a push for nuclear power plants in Australia.
“Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability. And we will continue to meet all of our nuclear non-proliferation obligations,” Morrison said.
On the issue of nuclear power plants, don’t believe him. Morrison could hardly have said anything else. It’s one thing to announce a switch to nuclear powered submarines without any broad social discussion, but quite another to commit the country to nuclear power.
But the pro-nuclear lobby – both within and without the federal Coalition government – won’t be able to help themselves, even if the reality is that the sub construction won’t likely even start for the best part of a decade, and be complete for at least another 10 years after that, such is the complexity of the technology.
The nuclear lobby will say it is bizarre that Australia could be the only country in the world planning to sustain a nuclear powered submarine fleet without a civil nuclear industry. Even the retired Admiral Chris Barry noted that the absence of a civil nuclear industry left a “big gap” for Australia to manage a submerged nuclear fleet.

Giles Parkinson, Reneweconomy

Nuclear, Old_Notes

Nuclear Submarines: answers to common questions

September 20, 2021

Following secret deliberations, this week, the Morrison government has announced that Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines. Anti-nuclear movement stalwart, and Friends of the Earth National Nuclear campaigner, Dr. Jim Green, had these comments to common questions about the decision.

Shrugging person over a submarine - Text in box: Nuclear Submarines: Answers to common questions - Friends of the Earth logo and anti nuclear logo

Are there alternatives?

Apart from the French built, fossil fuel diesel options already on the table,  because the process has been entirely secret, we have no way of knowing whether alternative options have been properly considered. These include the options of building fewer submarines (or none at all), and advanced lithium-ion battery technology to power submarines (South Korea’s choice after 30 months of comprehensive evaluation).

What about nuclear weapons and security?

Nuclear powered submarines typically use highly-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. This would undermine global efforts to phase out the use of HEU because of WMD proliferation and security concerns.

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons notes: “Military nuclear reactors in Australia would present a clear nuclear weapons proliferation risk and become potential sites for nuclear accidents and radiological contamination long into the future.”

Sign our petition to say no to nuclear subs

Take Action

The government wants to build nuclear submarines in suburban Adelaide. Does that put a target on our back? Is it prudent to build nuclear submarines in a city of 1.3 million people? What alternative locations have been considered, if any?

Does the government secretly want to bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability with a nuclear submarine program? Do such deliberations explain why the Morrison government refuses to sign the UN’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and has actively undermined the Treaty at every step? (In the late 1960s, John Gorton’s government actively pursued a nuclear power program and Gorton later acknowledged a hidden weapons agenda. Gorton actively opposed Australia signing the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.) … Read more >>

Nuclear, Old_Notes