<p>
[quote]
Only mammoth aircraft carriers and stealthy submarines are powered by nuclear reactors in today's Navy, but the idea of creating nuclear-powered surface warships for the first time in years is getting increased attention from the department and Congress.</p>
<p>The Navy signaled its openness to the idea this month in a report to Congress, according to Navy spokesman Lt. Bashon Mann and Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), one of the biggest congressional proponents of nuclear-powered warships....
<p>The nukes were all decommed while I was in, primarily due to cost of operation. For this to be getting looked at again means one or both of two things: 1) new designs and systems have driven costs down, 2) concerns over fuel supplies has gone up.</p>
<p>I suspect both. Will definitely be interesting to see.</p>
<p>question....wouldn't nuclear surface warfare pose too great a danger....as in target? I mean nuclear subs are at least hard to find.... just wondering, this after watching a recent documentary on the kamakazi attacks and the Indiannapolis.... (yes, sunk by a sub)....</p>
<p>It's a very different world today. The fact is that modern sensors and weapons make comparisons to WWII totally meaningless. It is exceedingly difficult for a missile to sneak into a formation undetected, and modern weapons are very effective at shooting them down. By the same token, modern missiles are so destructive that a single impact will most likely either sink the ship or so cripple it as to make it unuseable to the task force. Remember HMS SHEFFIELD, MV ATLANTIC CONVEYOR, USS STARK, etc.</p>
<p>Being nuclear won't mean much. Yes, you have radiation issues, but the fire and the flooding will be far more pressing and immediate threats.</p>
<p>The trick, of course, is to hit them before they hit you. ;)</p>
<p>Oh, and carriers (with multiple nuclear reactors) are VERY easy to find. You can't easily hide a floating steel island that's four football fields long. Their escorts (nuclear or not) won't be the primary targets in any case.</p>
<p>It is relatively hard to create the 'catastrophic' bang by uncalibrated forces (i.e. the ship being bombed, straffed, etc.), the only real danger would be a leak of radioactive materials, however that can be minimized to some degree with the proper systems in place.</p>
<p>Not to mention, isn't the best defense a good offense, so who wouldn't want a ship that can run full speed around the world while others are limited by concerns over fuel consumption.</p>
<p>Having said that, I do believe that is why amphibous boats are not being considered, given their missions of beaching themselves to unload equipment, making for an easy target. Constantly moving surface warfare would be a much harder target.</p>
<p>Oh, gosh. I didn't even consider a potential nuclear detonation. That simply cannot happen. Nuclear weapons are precision instruments beyond the wildest dreams of Swiss watchmakers. Nuclear reactors are configured all "wrong" to create a detonation.</p>
<p>That one of the main problems the "uneducated" have about nuclear ships, which they link to ticking nuclear bombs ready to go off at the slightest bump - completely wrong.</p>
<p>Same goes for civilian nuclear power plants. It is impossible for them to go critical and explode.</p>
<p>I should point out that any at-sea meltdown would be short-lived. Water is the best coolant there is for a reactor, and the ocean is chock full of it.</p>
<p>so you mean to tell me that if a missle hit a nuclear reactor, on a ship or elsewhere, it would not result in some kind of mushroom cloud? I mean, did "24" have their first episode all wrong? oh my!</p>
<p>Well, I haven't seen 24 (my dad just loaned me Seasons 1-5), but the answer to your question is essentially no unless, of course, the missile itself is nuclear.</p>
<p>If you want to get a quick and fairly decent understanding of what it takes to create a nuclear weapon, read Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears". It gives you an inkling into just how precise a nuclear weapon's construction is, even if the theoretical physics behind it all is fairly simple. An explosion caused by a missile or bomb is to disorganized to cause a mass of uranium to reach critical mass. Additionally (and here my knowledge really becomes spotty), the kind of uranium used in reactors is fundamentally different than that used in weapons. It's not enriched enough to really go BOOM.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Aircraft carriers might not be the only nuclear-powered surface ships in the future fleet.</p>
<p>Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter told a San Diego audience that service officials are closely studying the possibility of nuclear power for a new class of cruisers, a strategy that has drawn some congressional interest....
<p>No matter whether a nuclear or conventional weapon hit a nuclear reactor, there would be no additional threat. If it was a conventional weapon, you'd have a "dirty bomb" and if it were nuclear you'd have a bit more fallout.</p>
<p>However, first off it'll probably be in the middle of the ocean. Secondly, if it's docked and we get hit the small amount of fallout willl probably not be a chief concern. This assumes a breach of the reactor vessel, not just a missile hitting the ship. And, since a lot of the systems would sink into the water, that would provide a very good barrier.</p>