What are the real reasons behind Brazil’s interest in a nuclear powered submarine?
By Lucius Lomax<br />
The idea of a rogue nation using peaceful nuclear technology for armaments has been explored extensively by both Hollywood and the United Nations. But the idea of acquiring nuclear power—under the pretext of military use—with the real intention of commercial development appears to be an original idea of the Brazil government.
A deal was struck two years ago with the French to build five submarines for Brazil, one of them powered by a nuclear reactor, and all stationed at the Sepetiba sub base in Rio. Authorities in Brasilia have given a wide variety of reasons, over three decades, for wanting to pursue nuclear boat technology, most recently citing protection of the country’s valuable oil fields and energy platforms. None has seemed very convincing and now, with work under way and centrifuges soon spinning, a new explanation has taken shape that has more to do with economic competition than undersea warfare.
First, why you don’t need a nuclear sub to protect coastline: US experts have thrown cold water on the idea that a nuke is even right for the job.
“Current thinking on coastal defence of undersea infrastructure,” said a prominent academic at the US Naval War College, “is being focused on unmanned systems and capabilities that offer persistent surveillance. Nuclear submarines or submarines propelled by more conventional means represent an expensive solution that would require several ships to provide persistent protection.” US companies are presently developing underwater drone technology, in principle not unlike the airborne drones that are increasingly important in surface warfare. “In coastal defence,” said the US expert, who did not wish to be identified, “surveillance systems ashore and in sufficient quantities at sea would provide a more efficient capability.”
Nuclear subs are built, instead, to “project power”—or at least that is how the U.S., Britain and other members of the nuclear-capable club use them. Brazil is now the only BRIC country without nuclear submarines (two years ago India launched one, and has since rented another from Russia) and also the only one without nuclear weapons, Brazil being a belated and some would say reluctant signatory of non-proliferation treaties.
At present, French engineers in Rio de Janeiro are reportedly working on an 11 megawatt reactor as a prototype of what will be used in the ship, to be completed by 2021. A former senior CIA executive, himself ex-Navy—when told of the Brazilian efforts—said that the real reason was probably much more likely prestige than protecting oil fields. That may depend on how “prestige” is defined. In any case, the idea of a nuclear submarine patrolling among the drilling platforms off Rio, in the “pre-salt” regions or even at a chokepoint like the mouth of the Amazon, is probably erroneous.
So what are the Brazilians up to? A clue comes from a US academic.
Wendy Hunter, a University of Texas researcher who writes about the Brazilian military, recalled attending a Navy presentation to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies in the early 1990s, when the subject of nuclear propulsion was discussed, in which the naval officer testifying said that the acquisition of a nuclear sub (presumably the engineering and logistics) might be more important for Brazil than actually owning one.
This view gained further credence two years ago when the Brazilian government issued a “clarification” of the reasons for pursuing the contract with France. Of the five submarines to be built with French assistance, each in turn will have a greater Brazilian contribution, ending with the fifth vessel, which will be nuclear-powered. “On the contract with France,” the Brazilians declared, “the national content index reaches 20%, representing the production in Brazil of more than 36,000 items for the submarine, including complex systems, in addition to the transfer of technology to domestic companies. There are already more than thirty approved Brazilian companies, and several others are in the process of qualification.” In the final portion of the Brazilian declaration, the possibility of yet another technological transfer, giving nuclear propulsion to Brazil’s civilian fleet, is only hinted at, but seems clear.
“The project will also allow the transfer of vital dual-use technologies which will further increase the competitiveness of Brazilian industry,” the statement read, “which is integrated more and more into the national strategy of development.” Russia, Britain, the U.S. and Germany have all tried nuclear propulsion in non-military shipping, with limited success. Recently, China’s Cosco shipping line has proposed using nuclear propulsion in its vessels. One of the likely routes, according to the industry-supported World Nuclear Association, is South America to Asia.
Which doesn’t mean Brazil doesn’t have defence needs. A recent paper by Oxford’s Centre for Brazilian Studies says that despite a longstanding rivalry with Argentina, Brasilia’s military leaders were genuinely shocked by the ease with which Argentina was defeated in the Falklands War. The lesson which the Brazilians apparently took away from the war was the importance of submarines, as evidenced by the British torpedoing of the Argentine warship General Belgrano, and the Argentine’s costly use of submarines, as a feint, before launching devastating air attacks against British warships.
Nuclear reactor-powered subs are able to go as long as ten years without re-fuelling, and can stay underwater for weeks or months at a time. While naval experts may describe submarines generally as a “poor man’s weapon,” providing “a lot of bang for the buck,” that may not be the case with the nuclear variety. They are expensive and also complicated to run. In the 1960s the US lost two nuclear subs in five years, the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion, with their entire crews, in underwater explosions that have never been completely explained. The Russians have also experienced a series of mishaps culminating with the loss eleven years ago of the Kursk and her crew of 118.
An article in Der Spiegel earlier this year described the Brazilian effort to build a nuclear sub as a Trojan horse of a different kind—a cover for the real effort to build a nuclear bomb.
But José Augusto Guilhon Albuquerque, former director of the University of São Paulo Research Centre for International Relations, who has followed Brazilian nuclear ambitions through the years, says Brasilia has made clear time and time again that the South Atlantic should be a Bomb-free zone.
Speaking of any idea of development of a Brazilian nuclear weapon, he said, “It's unconstitutional, it wouldn't pass in the Congress, it could be stopped at the Supreme Court, and would be rejected by public opinion.
Suggested Stories
-
May 25th 2012
Three former presidents admit Mercosur has failed and has Uruguay ‘trapped’
-
May 22nd 2012
Argentina proposal to increase Mercosur common external tariff from 22% to 35%
-
May 25th 2012
Argentina attacks WTO and US on trade issues at OECD ministerial round
-
May 23rd 2012
Falklands’ economy “booming” in spite of Argentina’s efforts of a blockade
51 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
The good people of Nanking knew the Japanese very well too
According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanking and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000. These estimates are borne out by the figures of burial societies and other organizations, which testify to over 155,000 buried bodies. These figures do not take into account those persons whose bodies were destroyed by burning, drowning, or other means
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were atomic bombs...not nuclear, if your going to try and have a stupid opinion at least have the decency and respect in front of us intelligent folk to get some of the facts right.....
Just pointing out the Japs way of killing civilians
true they did genuinely prevent what would have been a nightmarish invasion of japan which would have resulted in far more deaths occurring, and true the Japanese Empire had been acting with cruelty and ferocity that easily matched that of Nazi Germany
but on the other hand these weapons could have been used on purely military targets with similar effect to morale, and the argument that Japan's crimes made it deserve this attack falls through when you remember that the USA allowed the monsters responsible for the worst of Japan's crimes to go free anyway.
In the end neither argument is any more valid than the other
Atomic bomb is a type of nuclear weapon smart sassenach Adam.
but it does save more buildings .
Read comment #108 :-)))
en.mercopress.com/2011/11/24/chilean-solidarity-with-malvinas-group-manifests-public-support-for-argentina
I'd go hide under my bed in embarassment if I had been refuted that way after such a display of pretentiousness.
Another part of the article says: ''Brasilia’s military leaders were genuinely shocked by the ease with which Argentina was defeated in the Falklands War''... That's right, 17 year old kids without clothes and outnumbered in almost every battle, fighting pirates, gurkas and mercenarys from everywhere...
The conscripts were young – between 19 and 20 years of age – but were not significantly different in their age from the British soldiers. One of the myths that arose from the war was that the Argentine Army contained 15 year-old soldiers; but the most recent call-up category was one consisting of 19 year-olds of the 1962 register.
One authority has noted that there was no stark difference between conscript and ‘regular’ units of the Argentine Army; and that all units, apart from certain small elites, were of mixed composition, which is normally the case in any army based on national service. The same criticism would have applied to the British Army in the period 1939–57
So what, Rubino.
YOUR government sent them there. Not us or the Chileans.
What did you expect the British to do? “oh! they're just kids.” “lets go home & let them have British territory”.
They were an invading, occupying force.
They had to be removed & they were removed.
Shows how much your government cared, look how they were treated when they came home.
Anyway they weren't all conscripts. There was also your(snigger, snigger)Marines who ran like children when they heard that the Gurkhas wer coming.
FYI there are two basic types of nuclear weapon. The earliest types involve solely fission reactions. These are generally called atomic bombs or A-weapons. They are generally considered to cover a range up to 500 kilotons (500,000 tons of TNT. The most common later type is the one generally referred to as a nuclear weapon. It can also be called a thermonuclear, a hydrogen or an H-weapon. It involves both fission and fusion reactions. Fusion weapons are limited in content only by the size and weight considerations of the delivery system. The largest thermonuclear device ever tested was more than 50 megatons (50 million tons of TNT). Only five countries have tested and have stocks of thermonuclear weapons - United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China.
@16 So your uncle and many of his friends were only 17, were they? Tough. Shows how much your political leaders care about you. And don't think CFK wouldn't do the same if it suited her purpose. Mind you, all around the world, gung-ho kids have been known to lie about their age when it comes to enlisting. One of the penalties of letting the education system brainwash youngsters and peddle lies for the benefit of politicians. By the way, there are no pirates in the British armed forces. And where's Puerto Argentino? There's no such place. Some name you made up to try to justify your attempted imperialist colonialist theft is it?
Just as a matter of interest, have you Argies and your supporters EVER tried telling the truth?
So atomic bombs are a form of nuclear weapons. If I said therefore that the US did a nuclear attack on Japan when it dropped the bombs, I'd be right. Just as I'd also be right if I said, for example, that I was chased by a mad mammal when I was a kid, in reference to an event in which a dog ran after me on the street to bite me - after all, dogs are a mammal species, so it isn't incorrect to call them mammals; just like atomic bombs, by your own explanation, are a form of nuclear weapons, so it isn't wrong to call them that. Moreover, by your own explanation, atomic bombs aren't different from nuclear weapons; they're themselves nuclear weapons, as you yourself said. It is only that thre are other types. Likewise it isn't right to say dogs are different from mammals, since dogs are themselves mammals, though there are non-dog mammals. Can you understand that, or are you so desperate to score points with these irrelavant observations?
Be that as it may, though you're perhaps too “smart” to see that, Typhoon, my argument was only that the US attack wasn't justified; that is, this argument is one about morality, not on the sort of weapon or any such triviliaty. It's just like saying that it isn't right to kill someone if it is not in self-defense: whether one uses a knife or a gun to do that is really besides the point. Can you and RC, “the intelligent folk”, see the difference?
Was Brazil justified in taking part the most destructive war in modern times
One estimate places total Paraguayan losses — through both war and disease — as high as 1.2 million people, or 90% of its pre-war population.[2][3] A different estimate places Paraguayan deaths at approximately 300,000 people out of its 500,000 to 525,000 prewar inhabitants.[4] According to Steven Pinker the war killed more than 60% of the population of Paraguay, making it proportionally the most destructive war in modern times
Trying to lecture anybody about geography, history....or nuclear weapons, you would be perceived as a candidate for 'Turnip Prize' 2011.
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/8912847/Banksy-in-the-running-for-Turnip-Prize-2011.html
Economic weapons are the new weapon of choice.
oh by the way, you missed out the aliens ?
Why everything has to be like this for you? I don't shy away from facing whatever my country has done wrong towards minority groups or foreign nations. I'm not a mediocre cartoon patriot like you. Even though the war was provoked by Paraguayan expansionism, I do believe our army's reaction was disproportionate and inhumane. Still, it wasn't the most destructive war in modern times. On the Paraguayan side, casualties amounted to no more than 300,000 people. The demographic impact was large only because Paraguay had a small population. However, more recent wars - WW1, WW2, Vietnam war, Iran-Iraq War, US-Iraq War - have produced far more casualties.
You was having a pop at the Yanks, I am not a Yank,just pointing out to you nasty things happen in wars
On the Paraguayan side, casualties amounted to no more than 300,000 people. The demographic impact was large only because Paraguay had a small population.
And that makes it OK then?
Regarding the population before the war, Dr. Whigham used a census carried out in the year 1846 in order to calculate, based on a population growth rate of 1.7 to 2.5 percent annually (which was the standard rate in the time and again the aforementioned omissions), that the immediate pre-war population in 1864 was approximately 420,000-450,000 Paraguayans. This figure produces a loss of 60 to 70 percent of the population.
No, you may not be an American, but still you have this tendency to believe that criticism against a nation can be refuted by adducing negative facts on some other nation - even if those 'facts' are irrelevant to the topic at hand. You tend to do that specially when someone points inconvenient facts on Britain.
“And that makes it OK then?”
Are you fucking retarded, sticky? Haven't I already said on the post you replied to that it was NOT justified what the Brazilian army did to Paraguayans? I said: ”(...) I do believe our army's reaction was disproportionate and inhumane“. Do ”disproportionate“ and ”inhumane” mean OK in The Dictionary of Retard? I was only saying that the Paraguayan War wasn't the most destructive, since other wars have caused more casualties. I think my words were pretty clear, though I guess I'll have to repeat myself often when I discuss with someone who's both stupid and addicted to contradicting others just for the sake of it.
I'm reading that the 'mixed economy' of weaponry, economic sequestering, area control, and cyber interference gives a 'country' something called Coercive Force.
This can be deployed as a grand strategy over years and generations to manage world affairs to the progressively greater benefit of the party deploying the strategy most successfully.
I see the strategy behind China's advancement into the modern (Western) world as being managed through the principles of Art of War, the 2000 year old Chinese military treatise, attributed to Sun Tzu - a bit like the ancient game Go (Chinese: 圍棋, Pinyin: Weiqi) but working with the wholw world.
Though Wiki is good on the military dimension, and makes passing reference to the business environment, it nowhere takes the global picture and tests the propositions against what is happening around us today.
This is the 'elephant in the room', as, once you open your eyes to the proposition you can see the evidences all around you.
Stratfor and World Politics Review should be the discussion hubs of this proposition, but they are strangely quiet.
no, but you might, if you think 60 to 70 percent of A population being killed doesnt compare with Vietnam war, Iran-Iraq War, US-Iraq War - .
Try using your toes when counting :-)
Hiroshima Nagasaki
Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
Dead 66,000 39,000
Injured 69,000 25,000
Total Casualties 135,000 64,000
the japs got off light then
That's not my logic, Einstein, that's yours.
I'm really surprised about this as nuclear fusion/fission is part of every schoolboy textbook.
But the post was about WHY Brasil wants a nuclear-powered submarine.
The arguments presented in the text ALL seem plausible, but all are presented as single competing rationales.
It's my guess that the reason is 'all of the above'.
There is little mileage in being the BRIC Peace Candidate Nation.
They are called the great Powers for a reason, and the ability to create, manage and control nuclear-based technologies fundimentally segregates the greater powers from the lesser powers. That's why we are trying hard to not need to come to terms with North Korea and Iran.
Domestically, and within Unasur, there is an unacceptible asymmetry in having the lame-duck Argentina WITH the technology, and Brasil without it. It's a bit like letting Greece control the European Union.
As for the technology transfer from military submarines to non-military vessels - it's novel, even plausible, but I'm not persuaded.
An interesting posting.
your reply tells us you are impersonating arnt you,
but who you really are is even less of interest
“why couldn't Brazil do it; what are they black ???”
And what's so wrong with black?
8 out of 10 people around here in Bahia - Brasil - are black .
Fail to see your logic.
very clever, but are you not colonist, in part
no one suffers under uk occupation,
and with an attatute like that, you will never obtain weapons of mass destruction, bacause you cant be trusted,,
silly people like you think nuclear weapons are a game, little rocket you can throw at people and then bang bang your dead,
.............
the reality is, nuclear weapons are the END GAME, and for irrational children who just want revenge,?
I don't know who told you Brazil lacks the technology, Geoff, but you're wrong. When Sarney announced during the late 80s that Brazil had finally come to dominate the full nuclear cycle, it was estimated that it would takebut a few years for it to produce the nukes. Of course, this path has been blocked after the anti-nationalist Fernando Collor dismantled the nuclear program in an attempt, a failed attempt, to promote a rapproachment with the US. And mind you, it took so long for Brazil to control the nuclear cycle because the technology it imported from Germany was only experimental; Brazilian scientists had to work their way into improving the inefficient German technology to achieve their aims. And finally, it's not like the knowledge to produce nukes is very exclusive. Though there are less than 10 nuclear armed nations, the IAEA estimates that there are 40 nations with that capability. And Brazil is among them.
where have I made any reference to nuclear arms?
My comments @ #36 concerned the ability to manage nuclear technologies and the political advantage that accrues from this.
I'm well aware of Brasil's history of development of its capabilities.
However, your statement about Germany's inferior nuclear technology needing Brasil's intellectual input to make it work does a great disservice to the German nationals that have been at the forefront of the developments of nuclear technology since its inception, across Western Europe, the USA and Russia/USSR.
Though I have not the proof to hand, it's my guess that Germans have also played a significant part in the transfer of nuclear technologies to other nations with nuclear capabilities; it could not have ALL been the French!
And I am very much in favour of Brasil's mixed energy production sector including nuclear power stations - alongside the Rio Xingo/Bel Monte hydroelectric scheme.
I too am in favour of a diversified energy sector.
No one will put their military forces at argentine command, or send forces to Argentina,
If you can prove otherwise let us know .
The jury's out on that one
bio-weapons? what you going to do drop your shitty pants on them
There is already a Russian ship in Egypt [and a Russian ship in the black sea]] and your point is .
,,,,,,,,,
And a bio-weapons,,, [are they bio-de-gradable .
British illegal aliens [what planet] we can send them back, pesky aliens .
I don't live in cuckoo land,[just the chicken bit then .]
And your point is,
The tip of the pencil,
Pencil used for writing,, read by the eyes, and used by the mouth for talking,
And you argie love to talk,
Just a gibberish thought .
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!