Latest news with #RUSI
AsiaOne
6 hours ago
- Politics
- AsiaOne
What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?, World News
Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday (June 19) when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast — home to Iran's only nuclear power station — only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. What has Israel hit so far? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. What fallout risks do these strikes pose? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. [[nid:719286]] He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle — the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor — pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. What about nuclear reactors? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". [[nid:719289]] Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. Why are Gulf states especially worried? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80 per cent of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100 per cent of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100 per cent dependant on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50 per cent of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Centre. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said. [[nid:719283]]
News.com.au
7 hours ago
- Business
- News.com.au
Trump 'Golden Dome' plan tricky and expensive: experts
President Donald Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" defence system is a plan that will face mammoth technical and financial hurdles, and could increase global insecurity, experts say. Trump announced plans for the space-based system last month, saying it would eventually cost around $175 billion and would be operational by the end of his term in 2029. The planned defence shield's name is a nod to Israel's Iron Dome that has intercepted thousands of short-range rockets since 2011. But the US defence system would intercept much bigger intercontinental threats. The plan comes after a 2022 Department of defence study pointed to advances by China and Russia. Beijing is closing the gap with Washington when it comes to ballistic and hypersonic missile technology, while Moscow is modernising its intercontinental-range missile systems and developing advanced precision strike missiles, it said. Trump has claimed the "Golden Dome" will be "capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world". But analysts are sceptical. "I'm not holding my breath," said Thomas Withington, an associate fellow at the RUSI defence think tank. "The challenges are so significant at this stage that they may simply be unrealistic to surround in the timeframes that the Trump administration envisages." - 'Poster child for waste' - Thomas Roberts, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the "Golden Dome" plan was based on being able to detect when a long-range missile was fired. A missile's so-called "boost phase" -- which produces a heat blast that lasts one to two minutes and can be observed from space -- is the best time to deploy defences, he said. "If you had an enormous constellation of interceptors in orbit at all times, they could be readily de-orbited -- or systematically removed from orbit -- to strike an intercontinental ballistic missile," he said. But Todd Harrison, from the American Enterprise Institute, said this would require a massive number of satellites. "It takes about 950 interceptors spread out in orbit around the Earth to ensure that at least one is always in range to intercept a missile during its boost phase," he said. But that means that if an adversary launches a salvo of ten missiles, some 9,500 interceptors would be needed to ensure at least ten are within range. "Given that China has about 350 intercontinental ballistic missiles and Russia has 306 -- not including their sub-launched ballistic missiles -- scaling a space-based interceptor system to meet the threat quickly becomes impractical." The non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office estimates that, just to stop "one or two intercontinental ballistic missiles", the United States would need a constellation of satellites costing between $161 billion to $542 billion. The US military could spend billions of dollars on research only for the next administration to nix the project, Harrison warned. "Golden Dome could become the poster child for waste and inefficiency in defence," he said. The plan also calls for developing satellites able to fire lasers at missiles to avoid too much debris on impact. But a European defence contractor said on condition of anonymity that such lasers are "still beyond what even the Americans are capable of doing". "It's just an excellent way to give the US (defence) industry substantial funding so they can increase their technological lead without necessarily aiming for actual operational deployment," the contractor said. - 'Global arms race'? - Trump's plan is reminiscent of President Ronald Reagan ambition for a Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s, which also sought to place interceptor satellites in space. China and Russia, which both have nuclear weapons, have slammed the latest plan as "deeply destabilising". Nuclear-armed North Korea has called the plan a "very dangerous" threat. Julia Cournoyer, research associate at Chatham House, said the plan was risky as adversaries would likely see it "as an attempt to undermine the logic of nuclear deterrence". "If Washington is perceived to be developing a shield that could one day neutralise a retaliatory nuclear strike, it risks triggering a dangerous global arms race," which would exacerbate rather than reduce risk. Withington said Trump might be hoping to use the plan as leverage for talks with China and Russia. "It may be that the Trump administration is hoping that this would bring both countries to some kind of negotiating table to talk about a reduction of nuclear warhead sizes or to revitalise the arms control agenda," he said. mra/ah/as/gv
Scottish Sun
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Scottish Sun
Brit AI-drone gunships to fly alongside Apache helicopters in war of the future
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) BRITAIN'S new AI-drone gunships will fly alongside Apache helicopters in future battles. Apache pilots will command up to six drones, known as mules, carrying missiles, sensors and jamming kit. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Britain's new AI-drone gunships will fly alongside Apache helicopters in future wars The mules will also be programmed to fight autonomously and control swarms of smaller drones on the ground. This triple-layer system will give the Army far greater firepower and aims to protect our fleet of Apache AH-64Es, Challenger 3 tanks plus soldiers on the ground. More integration of crewed and uncrewed aircraft had been hinted at in the Strategic Defence Review announced earlier this month. Defence Secretary John Healey told this week's RUSI land warfare conference in London: 'From this year, we will be investing more than £100million in new, initial funding to develop land drone swarms.' READ MORE ON DRONES GULF EXIT Brit & US spy planes quit Gulf amid fears of Iran reprisals over Israel's attack 'Our Autonomous Collaborative Platforms (the mules) will fly alongside the Apache attack helicopters and enhance the Army's ability to strike, survive and win on the battlefield. 'This will be a game-changer. It will be applying the lessons from Ukraine in a world- leading way. It will be putting the UK at the leading edge of innovation in Nato.' Chief of the General Staff Sir Roly Walker said 80 per cent of the Army's weapons in future wars would be drones — as it could take months to build Apaches and tanks and years to train their crews. He said drones were vital as the Ukraine war had 'shown how a £20million tank and four experienced crew can be lost to a £1,000 drone operated by a kid with a few days' training'. He added of the mule drones: 'You don't want to lose them but, if you do, it's not a tragedy because, although sophisticated, they are uncrewed.'
The Sun
12 hours ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Brit AI-drone gunships to fly alongside Apache helicopters in war of the future
BRITAIN'S new AI-drone gunships will fly alongside Apache helicopters in future battles. Apache pilots will command up to six drones, known as mules, carrying missiles, sensors and jamming kit. The mules will also be programmed to fight autonomously and control swarms of smaller drones on the ground. This triple-layer system will give the Army far greater firepower and aims to protect our fleet of Apache AH-64Es, Challenger 3 tanks plus soldiers on the ground. More integration of crewed and uncrewed aircraft had been hinted at in the Strategic Defence Review announced earlier this month. Defence Secretary John Healey told this week's RUSI land warfare conference in London: 'From this year, we will be investing more than £100million in new, initial funding to develop land drone swarms.' 'Our Autonomous Collaborative Platforms (the mules) will fly alongside the Apache attack helicopters and enhance the Army's ability to strike, survive and win on the battlefield. 'This will be a game-changer. It will be applying the lessons from Ukraine in a world- leading way. It will be putting the UK at the leading edge of innovation in Nato.' Chief of the General Staff Sir Roly Walker said 80 per cent of the Army's weapons in future wars would be drones — as it could take months to build Apaches and tanks and years to train their crews. He said drones were vital as the Ukraine war had 'shown how a £20million tank and four experienced crew can be lost to a £1,000 drone operated by a kid with a few days' training'. He added of the mule drones: 'You don't want to lose them but, if you do, it's not a tragedy because, although sophisticated, they are uncrewed.'
Straits Times
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
Explainer: What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
Explainer: What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran? Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast - home to Iran's only nuclear power station - only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. WHAT HAS ISRAEL HIT SO FAR? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. WHAT FALLOUT RISKS DO THESE STRIKES POSE? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR REACTORS? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. WHY ARE GULF STATES ESPECIALLY WORRIED? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardizing a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
