Case for Nuclear Powered Arctic Icebreakers ❄️🚢
*I’ve decided to shamelessly self-publish some of my policy memo’s from a very interesting class I took in the Spring of 2017. This was about the Arctic Region conducted by the Canadian Studies department of my grad school.
Policy Memo: Nuclear Powered Arctic Icebreakers, To the Honorable Sean J. Stackley, Acting Secretary of the United States Navy
- From a Graduate Student of Arctic Studies
- Date: 28th February 2017
Dear Sir,
The Arctic region is increasingly becoming a vital region for U.S. Strategic interests in the 21st Century. Arctic icebreakers represent the capacity of military dominance and access in the region. Notably Russia is an uncontested leader in that measure with a fleet of over 40 ice breakers with growing military infrastructure along its Arctic coastline. Russia is also the only country with nuclear powered icebreakers with a long history of building them since 1959. The U.S. Navy has only two conventional icebreakers, the heavy polar icebreaker Polar Star and the medium polar icebreaker Healy. However only the Coast Guard cutter Polar Star can handle sustained operations in the Arctic despite the fact that it was planned for decommissioning a decade ago. This document calls for the U.S. Navy to invest in constructing Nuclear Powered Icebreakers and lays out the arguments for nuclear powered icebreakers in comparison with icebreakers powered by conventional sources of fuel.
Icebreakers are ships specially designed to travel through ice covered waters such as the Arctic region and provide access to other ships in such waters. According to ILS Oy, Helsinki, Finland and University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway, an icebreaker has three traits most normal ships lack: a strengthened hull, an ice-clearing shape, and the power to push through sea ice. Icebreakers are designed to power through even very thick layers of ice where powering though the forward hull of the ship can easily break ice under the weight of the ship. This process requires considerable and a consistent supply of energy to power through and the power of the ship would determine their maximum velocity though an ice covered ocean. Clearly a conventionally powered icebreaker would require hundreds of tons of diesel for operation for the same work that can be done by a single pound of uranium. The limited refueling infrastructure along the arctic coastline makes it more difficult for conventionally powered icebreakers to be an effective force in the Arctic region. Moreover, nuclear powered icebreakers have the capacity for higher speeds and maneuverability in the arctic ice covered regions. The reactor from a nuclear powered icebreaker can provide power up to 60 megawatts which can power through 8–10 feet thick ice at speed up to 10 knots whereas a conventional icebreaker would have difficulties finding the power to speed beyond 3–4 knots.
Multiple evidence suggests that the Arctic region is clearing up rapidly and be a route for international shipping in the near future. The Arctic routes has the potential to replace international transit via the Suez Canal and safe shipping time by a few days. When that day comes, the demand for services by icebreakers would become more prominent especially in the winter parts of the year where some of the arctic ice might reform and hurdle traveling around the arctic region. In addition, icebreakers can assist in resources exploration efforts in the region and allow for safe passage all year around.
Currently the Arctic region is responsible for more than 20% of Russia’s GDP and after Russian president Vladimir Putin’s return to power, Russia is strengthening its hold of power in the region. This focus in the Arctic is legitimate for Russia, being an Arctic country and having an economy tied to the region. However, analysis from many independent think tanks suggest that Russia’s investment in the Arctic has gone beyond mere civilian infrastructure, search and rescue and rural development in the region to take on a more militaristic view along its coastline. It is possible that Russia plans to take advantage melting ice and potential for international shipping in the region. Clearly its investments in infrastructure can go a long way in making this possible. The response from Washington has been amicable in light of these developments.
The United State does not have the long coastal reach or the developed Arctic infrastructure that Russia has. In this context Nuclear powered icebreakers can fill that essential strategic gaps in the Arctic. The capacity of Nuclear icebreakers to continue operations without refueling provides an unrestrained tactical advantage for the Coast guard to boldly venture into arctic operation with valor and dignity. Nuclear-powered icebreakers would also extend the Arctic reach of the Aegis fleet — U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers capable of ballistic missile defense by allowing safe passageway through the ice sheets clearing the way before them.
In conclusion the United States Navy and the Coast guard has much to gain in investing in Nuclear powered icebreakers. They will provide the technological might for the United States Navy in the Arctic to defend U.S. sovereignty and help maintain a U.S. presence in the Arctic territorial waters in the decades to come.
-End