Nuclear is having its media moment. Perhaps that’s what happens when a Democratic president visits the home of James Murdoch, the younger son of conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch, and starts talking about “Armageddon.”
Details from the political fundraiser in New York City
have heightened tensions across the world. “We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” pool reporters quoted the president. It’s the “first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat of the use (of a) nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going.”
One analyst called the comments “bone chilling
” although I am pretty sure bones heat up in a nuclear catastrophe.
For weeks now, DC analysts have been hotly (chillingly?) debating whether Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose forces in Ukraine seem to be increasingly tattered and on the run, might consider using a “tactical nuclear weapon” to push back advancing Ukrainian troops. President Joe Biden had strict words for his Russian counterpart: “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily (use) a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”
There’s been so much chatter about tactical nuclear weapons, but not nearly enough analysis on exactly how and why Russia might use such weapons. Even if you remove the risk of triggering global thermonuclear war, the battlefield utility of small nuclear weapons is limited. The Ukrainians, attempting to evade bombardment from Russian forces for months now, have decentralized its military operations, presenting relatively few valuable targets for a stronger bomb to strike. Any nuclear attack — small or large — would generate fallout, presenting a hazardous zone for friendly and enemy forces alike. And yes, while that could be the objective in and of itself, such an attack would be a tacit admission of surrender on the part of the Russians.
Of course, nuclear fallout in Ukraine doesn’t just have to be triggered by a weapon. Russia took over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in March and has been operating it with its original Ukrainian engineering staff ever since. Now, Russia wants the staff to sign new employee contracts
, endangering the workforce of one of Europe’s largest nuclear facilities, even while Russian missiles strike just outside of the plant’s walls.
Nuclear’s media moment isn’t just limited to the Old Continent. As we have talked intermittently across “Securities” newsletters, North Korea seems hell-bent on diverting attention from Russia’s potential nuclear attacks to its own.
Whew. Nuclear weapons really radiate negativity, don’t they?
While war and strategic threats have certainly dominated the headlines recently, nuclear’s media moment isn’t exclusive to the complete destruction of all life on Earth. In fact, a number of stories this week and over the past month showed that the path remains open for nuclear to be the savior of life on Earth as we confront the climate emergency.
The biggest news on this front came from Pittsburgh a week ago where Department of Energy officials announced that they were committing $50 million for commercialization of fusion technology — what one industry advocate described to CNBC
as “the first substantial investment by the U.S. government into private sector fusion-energy companies.”
Lee Margetts at the University of Manchester, UK, says that the physics of fusion reactors is becoming well understood, but that there are technical hurdles to overcome before a working power plant can be built. Part of that will be developing methods to withdraw heat from the reactor and use it to generate electrical current.
“It’s not physics, it’s engineering,” he says. “If you just think about this from the point of view of a gas-fired or a coal-fired power station, if you didn’t have anything to take the heat away, then the people operating it would say ‘we have to switch it off because it gets too hot and it will melt the power station’, and that’s exactly the situation here.”
(That’s a nice analogy, although I am pretty sure coal-fired power stations don’t reach 100 million degrees centigrade).
It’s probably worth remaining skeptical of fusion’s immediate prospects, but at least it’s having an impact. Fashion designer Gabriela Hearst
has triggered reactions with her new collection of fusion-inspired clothing. Vanessa Friedman
’s amusing and digressive analysis
in The New York Times:
She created a set in the circular shape of a tokamak, the name for the reactor that scientists hope to use to produce thermonuclear fusion. Commissioned an installation from the artist Paolo Montiel-Coppa involving zipping beams of light and giant glowing rings. Invited scientists from the various fusion energy companies to sit front row (you could tell them by their ties). And featured the hydrogen isotope as her aesthetic throughline.
The hydrogen isotope!
Nuclear is having its media moments, from the glitzy runways of Paris to the gritty runways of Russia and North Korea. One just hopes we are looking at Atoms for Peace, and not atoms smashing us into pieces.