Category: Opinion

A Reply To: Questioning Truth, Reality and the Role of Science

Here’s a reply to comments on Quanta Magazine by philosopher of science Michela Massimi in an article entitled “Questioning Truth, Reality and the Role of Science“.


First, let’s start with the disclaimer that this is a limited reply and not a full review of the article in which Professor Michela Massimi reports her vision of the philosophy of science.

I’m not qualified to address many of the questions touched on in the article and will thus focus on what most interests me, how philosophers of science can best serve the broad public.

To start, Massimi says…

“I see the target beneficiary (of the philosophy of science) as humankind, broadly speaking. We philosophers build narratives about science.”

This worthy goal would seem to raise the question of whether philosophy on any subject can be of use to humankind broadly speaking if it insists on using language which humankind broadly speaking can not readily access, which is typically the case.

It seems useful to make a distinction between philosophy, and the philosophy business. The philosophy business requires participants to address sophisticated concepts in largely inaccessible language so as to position themselves as experts. While this is good business, it seems at odd with good philosophy, if that is defined as serving the broad public.

Ok, this point has been made very many times, so let’s keep moving.

Massimi writes…

“But I believe it is our (philosophers of science) job to contribute to public discourse on the value of science….”

Yes, agree enthusiastically, with the condition that “public discourse” is not limited to a philosopher’s professional peers.

Given the central role science plays in our culture, contributing to public discourse of science would seem to be a very important job.

But let’s note, that “contributing to public discourse” does not automatically equal proclaiming the “value of science”. Contributing to public discourse can also include analysis of the dangers presented by science.

Massimi continues…

“In this respect, I see philosophy of science as delivering on an important social function: making the general public more aware of the importance of science.”

More agreement, and let’s keep going to see what she means by “the importance”.

Massimi writes…

“I see philosophers of science as public intellectuals who speak up for science, and rectify common misconceptions or uninformed judgments that may feed into political lobbies, agendas and ultimately policy-making.”

Speaking up for science? Can’t we count on scientists to perform that function?

It seems that the uniquely valuable role that philosophers can contribute on any subject is to explore and challenge the boundaries of the group consensus.

With that in mind, let’s do as Massimi suggests and attempt to “rectify common misconceptions” about science.

More Is Better?

I would argue that the most important misconception and widely held, largely unquestioned, group consensus assumption is that the “more is better” relationship with knowledge which served us so well for so long in an era of knowledge scarcity is also the appropriate paradigm in an era of exploding knowledge. This point is made at length on another page of this blog.

The careers of scientists depend upon the public’s continued allegiance to the “more is better” relationship with knowledge, so we can count on scientists to make this case. It’s good that this case should be made, and we already have a large body of well educated professionals happy to make it.

What we need philosophers to do is to argue the other side of the case. We need philosophers to explore beyond the widely held group consensus assumption that more knowledge automatically equals a better outcome.

A claim that more knowledge does not necessarily equal a better outcome is clearly debatable, but we can’t have a useful debate unless we have thoughtful and articulate analysis of both sides of the question.

A philosopher should not have to personally believe that more knowledge may represent a threat just as a good defense attorney can deploy all their skill in making the case for a client that they know is guilty. What the philosopher personally believes is of less importance than whether they can present challenges to group consensus assumptions in a thoughtful and articulate manner.

I’ve never read a philosopher who was not thoughtful and articulate so the question becomes…

Is the philosopher willing and able to challenge that which most people assume to be true? And, are they willing and able to pay the price of social rejection and possible career damage which may occur when they say things that a great many people do not want to hear?

As example, if a philosopher of science were to address a convention of scientists and make the case that the accelerating development of knowledge may be taking us towards civilization collapse, they should not expect to be sincerely applauded because they would in effect be challenging the scientist’s vision of themselves as being cultural heroes who are rescuing us from ignorance.

As example, if a philosopher of science were to address the public and make the case that the accelerating development of knowledge may be taking us towards civilization collapse, they would be puncturing the widely cherished notion that thanks to more and more knowledge our lives will continue to get better and better.

In my view, what defines a good philosopher is the willingness and ability to articulately challenge that which almost everyone assumes to be true, and the willingness to pay the price for performing this very important social function.

One of the important obstacles to philosophers performing this vital function seems to be the philosophy business, which like any business requires a certain amount of approval from consumers in order to obtain the funding necessary to keep the business running.

Massimi writes…

Physicists these days do not necessarily read other subjects at university or get trained in a broad range of topics at school. Large scientific collaborations enforce a more granular level of scientific expertise.

Yes, this is something I didn’t understand for a long time. I kept beating on the door of scientists hoping they would address the big picture of our relationship with knowledge not realizing that 1) that’s not really their job, and 2) the requirements of their enterprise push them away from the big picture and ever deeper in to an ever narrower view.

I have revised the misconception about science I previously suffered from. As I see it now, we hire scientists to develop new knowledge and they do an excellent job of performing the function we are paying them for. That’s all we can really ask of anyone.

And so now I look to philosophers, particularly philosophers of science, to inspect our relationship with knowledge, and challenge widely held assumptions about that relationship. So far I’ve not found what I’m looking for, and hopefully more looking will some day remedy that.

As example, I spent months on a leading group blog by professional academic philosophers hoping to find and contribute to discussion of our relationship with knowledge in general, and nuclear weapons in particular.

I failed miserably, as there simply was no interest in these subjects. Out of what seemed thousands of articles on the blog there was only a one about nuclear weapons, and that existed only because I mercilessly hounded the editor until he finally said something about nuclear weapons to shut me up. As I explored other academic philosophy blogs the situation was no different.

Philosophers are obviously intelligent very well educated people who typically have a gift for language, so that’s not the problem. As best I can tell, the obstacle is that once one turns philosophy in to an income producing enterprise the requirements of business begin to interfere with the important role that philosophers can and should be providing to society, which is…

Saying that which we don’t wish to hear.

Challenging that which we assume to be true.

Hopefully Massimi and other philosophers of science can contribute to my limited understanding of their discipline by pointing me to writing by their peers that challenge my own current assumptions.

I’d love to find more academic discussion of the incredible fact that our “more is better” relationship with knowledge has brought us to the point in history where a single person pushing a single button a single time can quickly destroy most everything that’s been built at such great cost over the last 500 years.

Given that such a predicament typically bores even the most well educated among us, it seems reasonable to question whether human beings really are ready for more and more knowledge delivered at an ever faster pace.

What philosophers of science can contribute is to lead such a conversation.

A Reply To: Machine Learning Takes On Antibiotic Resistance

Here’s a comment I added to an article on Quanta Magazine by Katherine Harmon Courage entitled “Machine Learning Takes On Antibiotic Resistance“.


The author writes…

“It really shows how you can use the emerging technology of deep learning in an innovative manner to discover new chemistries.”

Ok, we want to discover new chemistries to save lives. Somebody else will want to discover new chemistries to take lives. Thus, discovering new chemistries is not automatically a good thing, there are pros and cons, benefits and risks, which have to be weighed against each other.

In the past we could usually confidently plunge ahead in unlocking some new secret and if there were downsides we figured we’d fix that later. And because in the past the new secrets were typically revealed slowly and in a limited manner, that usually worked.

That equation begins to change as we apply powerful new tools like machine based deep learning to projects like discovering new chemistries. The benefits can now be greater, but also the risks. As the tools of discovery become more and more powerful, the scale of the benefits increasingly expands, as does the scale of the risks.

This issue of scale seems all important, because when any risk becomes big enough it threaten to erase all the benefits.

So for example, while one team solves the antibiotic problem, a huge benefit, another team learns how to create highly contagious fatal viruses which can be targeted at specific populations. If the fatal viruses are deployed and escape the control of their authors, then it won’t matter that the antibiotic problem has been solved.

This isn’t alarmist speculation. It’s history.

We unlocked the secret of the atom and developed a significant new form of clean energy, a huge benefit.

And at the same time we made it possible for one person clicking one button one time to erase modern civilization in less than an hour. Should that button ever be clicked, it won’t matter that we have clean energy. And any objective observation of thousands of years of persistent human conflict suggests that sooner or later somebody will probably click the button.

Assuming that safety issues and problems like toxic waste can be successfully resolved, clean nuclear energy could be a great benefit. But is it worth the price that one person can now destroy modern civilization in just a few minutes?

As powerful tools like machine learning bring new knowledge online at an ever faster pace, and as the scale of the new powers expands, the room for error steadily shrinks and odds that one of the new discoveries will bring down the entire system grows.

Thus, what I hope to find on Quanta are thoughtful articles which don’t relate to the development of new knowledge as if it were some kind of “one true way” religion. I hope to meet scientists and others who are willing to take the same kind of detached objective critical scrutiny that they routinely use in their work, and apply it to the future of science itself.

How much power can human beings successfully manage?

I don’t claim to know, but before we assume that the answer is any amount of power, we might recall that we are the species with thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, an ever present self extinction threat which we typically don’t find interesting enough to discuss.

This is who we are handing all these new discoveries too, a species which can quite reasonably be labeled brilliant, but also insane.

If I were a genius with a gun in my mouth, would you hand me another gun?

Vote Joe Cirincione for Congress!

America needs an elected official in Washington whose sole focus is the most dangerous threat to the future of humanity.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could elect someone to the U.S. Congress who proudly declared themselves to be a single issue politician focused exclusively on nuclear weapons?

I can’t think of a better candidate for such an important role than Joe Cirincione.

As stated on his bio

Joe Cirincione has worked on nuclear weapons policy in Washington for over 35 years and is considered one of the top experts in the field.

Mr. Cirincione is currently serving as the President of the Ploughshares Fund, an organization which has for over 37 years financially supported the most effective people and organizations in the world to reduce and eventually eliminate the dangers posed by nuclear weapons.

However, Joe has recently announced his retirement from the Ploughshares Fund, so now is the time to send him to Congress where he can grab the media’s attention by talking about the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons every single day.

No elected official in Washington has such a single minded focus on the biggest threat to America, which is clearly insane. Joe could fix this!

Ok, so in full disclosure, so there are a few little problems with the campaign to elect Joe so far. For one thing, Joe hasn’t agreed to run for Congress because, um, he doesn’t yet know about this campaign. But hey, we can fix that!

Imagine Joe going to Congress, grabbing the nation’s attention, becoming President, and then saving the world from nuclear horror. And it all started right here on this one little page. I want an invitation to the Inaugural Ball!

So friends, if you don’t want to die in a nuclear holocaust, Vote Joe Cirincione for Congress!

Big Announcement: I’m Running For President!

Yes my fellow Americans, the moment you’ve long dreamed of is finally here. Today I announce my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.

As you know, I didn’t want to run, but have been forced to by unfortunate events in the Democratic primaries.

The first thing that happened was that Senator Elizabeth Warren mentioned nuclear weapons one day in response to a question from a nosy reporter. As you’ll recall, I didn’t get upset, and let that one go. It was just one mention after all, which is I suppose an excusable mistake. And you know those gals, they say the darnest things sometimes, don’t they? And they’re so cute with their little “me too” parties and such.

But just when I thought the crisis had passed, Senator Bernie Sanders got sucked in by another one of those fakey news nosy reporter people and he mentioned the words “nuclear weapons” twice. Twice!

Look! See? There he is! Mentioning! Proof!

It then became clear that this was going to be a naughty words arms race that had to be stopped dead in it’s tracks before voters start focusing on the most awesome power of the Presidency.

So I took action, and publicly rebuked Senator Sanders for his loose tongue!

“Look Sanders”, I said, “WWII is over, and we won. The Japanese have stopped fighting and are now, um, making cars or something. So cut out all this talk about nuclear weapons! Two mentions! Enough already!”

He didn’t seem to get it, so I kept going. “The Cuban Missile Crisis is over too Sanders, and Kennedy fixed all that, so we can stop worrying about it.”

Now I’m worked up in to rage and I yelled at Sanders, “The cold war is over! The Russians gave up and went back to Russia or something! Get over it!!”

And no sooner do I launch my own campaign for the Presidency than yet another pesky little nosy reporter asked me this…

“If you are elected you may be called upon to incinerate millions of innocent people based on limited information and almost no warning. Are you prepared to do that?”

What is wrong with all these people??? So we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, and a single human being can end modern civilization with the press of a button.

So what? It’s been this way for awhile and nothing bad has happened, so nothing ever will. If we just forget about nuclear weapons they’ll go away, and everything will be fine.

So my fellow Americans, this is my pledge to you. From this moment forward I will no longer be mentioning nuclear weapons or the most awesome power of the Presidency like all those other candidates have done a time or two.

Vote for me so we can finally focus on Donald Trump’s orange hair and all those other silly little issues that don’t matter a single bit!!

Look at that hair! Impeach him! No more years!

Is Your Favorite Presidential Candidate Mentally Ill?

Here’s a medical procedure you can use to determine if someone is mentally ill. There’s not much to it really, just ask them this question.

Do you wish to be President of the United States?

If they answer yes, dial 911 immediately, as your patient is suffering from Nutzo Wacko Crackpot Delusions Of Grandeur Way Insane disease.

Seriously, imagine that you were applying for a job and at the interview they told you this…

As part of your duties, we may wake you up at 3am and call upon you to incinerate hundreds of millions of innocent people based on limited information and almost no warning. Are you prepared to do that?

If you’re sane, you immediately run screaming from the room, right?

But if you’re a wacko crackpot, you’d say something like, “Oh I could definitely perform that function for the company, no problem at all sir.

Shouldn’t we wonder just a wee little bit about the sanity of any person who spends years positioning themselves to get a job which could require them to launch a barrage of nuclear missiles at vast populations of innocents?

What kind of person looks themselves in the mirror in the morning and says, “Yep, I’d be good at that, I’m the right person for the job!!

Uh oh, wait, hang on a second. It gets worse. And here you thought that we were talking about somebody else.

What kind of person votes for somebody, anybody, running for President?

If we voters were sane, wouldn’t we choose the candidate whose platform pitch is…

No, no, no and no!!! There’s no way you’re going to get me to be President!!!!

As this primary season unfolds in the race for the Presidency most of us will dutifully enter the voting booth and pull a lever for somebody who wants to be the lucky one awoken at 3am by their National Security Advisor…

Mr. or Madam President! Wake up!! It’s time to push the button!

Ok everybody, smile for the group photo!

A Nuclear Weapons Congressional Candidate?

What if we could elect someone to the U.S. Congress who proudly declared themselves to be a single issue politician focused exclusively on nuclear weapons?

We can guess this would most likely be possible for a seat in the House of Representatives from a left leaning district. A candidate in such a district might make the following case to voters.

FOCUS THE POWER: Freshman members of the House have very little power. Thus, it makes sense to have the Representative focus all of their influence on a single important issue, such as the ever imminent existential threat to everything we hold dear, that is, nuclear weapons.

NO FUND RAISING: The candidate promises to spend none of their time in office raising money. This means the Representative will have a lot more time available, and voters will get every minute of it. It would also mean that when voters are ready to return to a multi-issue Representative the single issue candidate will not have a lock on the seat.

FEED THE MEDIA: Single issue candidates who proudly state they will work on no other issue will be interesting to the media, which will raise the Representatives profile and influence beyond that of the typical freshman Representative.

A HISTORIC VOTE: The candidate can impress upon voters that this is their opportunity to do something historic.

A UNITY ISSUE: The candidate can impress upon voters that nuclear weapons are a topic which has the potential to transcend partisan divides and unite the country.

Ignore Trump And Embrace His Base

The nuclear weapons activist community seems not to grasp one simple political fact.

America is never going to disarm until most people on both sides of the political divide agree that should happen.

Given this reality, as activists we face the challenge of doing everything we can to heal partisan divides and bring the country together. For we liberals, such a process will necessarily involve reaching out to Trump’s base, offering them respect, and acknowledging those cases where they are making a reasonable point. We might start with something like this…

Ignore Trump

Corporate media is going to cover every utterance of the Trump administration because their business model requires them to focus on melodrama to build audience and ad revenues. Trump gets this. Maybe we don’t.

The media is on the job, we don’t need to help them make Trump even more famous, which is exactly what Trump wants us to do.

If we’re talking privately with a swing voter who might be persuaded to abandon Trump, ok, make the case. But blasting out snarky partisan slogans on Twitter to followers who already agree with us accomplishes nothing other than deepening the divide that must be healed if we are ever to disarm.

Trump wants us to talk about him all day long every day. If we oppose Trump, we should do the opposite of what he wants and ignore him.

Embrace Trump’s Base

One day Trump will be gone, but his base will remain. Nuclear weapons activists will need these folks, so let’s show them some respect by being open minded to some of their perspectives. Here’s a few examples to illustrate the point.

Immigration: The population of America has doubled in my lifetime. It’s not unreasonable for citizens to wonder how far we’re going to go in that direction. It’s not unreasonable for them to reject a political class that can’t even ask that question, let alone come up with any kind of coherent answer.

Abortion: Many evangelicals voted for Trump out of deep concerns about abortion. Whatever our point of view might be on this never ending controversy, can we at least agree that it’s not unreasonable to be concerned about the mass killing of unborn children?

Religious Freedom: Some religious people feel under assault by secular culture and so they vote for people whom they feel will represent their views. There’s a name for this procedure. It’s called democracy. Everybody votes in their own interest. Not unreasonable.

Iran: Why are we not talking about a nuclear weapons deal with Iraq? Saddam Hussein is dead. Problem solved.

It’s not unreasonable for some of us to feel that a maximum pressure campaign which bankrupts an Iranian regime which routinely shoots it’s own citizens down in the streets might be a strategy worth giving a try.

The Genius: Some voters feel that Trump is a political genius. This is not such an unreasonable claim given that Trump came from basically nowhere to defeat every political “expert” in every party to take the highest office in land.

A Liberal Reaches Out

Ok, so in full disclosure, I’m Bernie Sanders type liberal who will never vote for Trump in any circumstance.

But being a liberal doesn’t automatically equal me always being being right about everything. Being a liberal doesn’t mean I can never learn anything from anybody unless they already agree with me. Being a liberal doesn’t make me morally superior to those who, out of sincere conviction and authentic patriotism, pull a different lever than I do in the voting booth.

Dear nuclear weapons experts and activists on Twitter….

Please focus on the fact that we need Trump voters if America is ever to disarm. Tweeting something snarky about Trump every day, to followers who already agree with you, does not advance the cause of nuclear disarmament. You mean well, but you haven’t thought it through.

Whether we are liberal or conservative, we need each other. And if we don’t find a way to come together, we’re all going to die together on the same day.

The Nature Of Power

Nuclear disarmament would be a decision made by a relatively small number of people at the top of the political power structures in each of the nuclear weapons states. This is particularly true in those countries where democracy is weak or non-existent.

As example, we aren’t negotiating nuclear issues with Iran, a country of 80 million people, but rather with a small handful of leaders at the top of the Iranian regime. That’s who will decide, the few, not the many.

The Good Guys

My thoughts were drawn to these obvious facts after the Democratic Presidential debate that happened just before the Iowa caucuses, the first votes to be cast in this year’s Presidential contest.

Right after that debate there were Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two of my favorite politicians, on the stage squabbling in front of an open mike about who called who a liar on national TV.

Here’s what could have happened instead.

Sanders and Warren could have used that event to announce that they were merging their campaigns, a move that would have likely won their ticket the Democratic nomination before the first primary vote was cast. Thus united, they could have quickly gathered the Democratic Party behind them, and shifted the focus away from Democrats fighting Democrats, to Democrats fighting Trump.

But that didn’t happen. Even with my favorite politicians. Instead of unity and a march to victory, Sanders and Warren are still focused on which one of them should get the top job, even though the policies they each are arguing for are very similar, certainly within reach of a compromise.

In my mind, Sanders and Warren are examples of two sincere well intentioned politicians who both envision a progressive political revolution. And yet, even they can’t seem to shift their focus from what would be good for them to what would be good for the country. Even they can’t seem to emerge from the same old power game we’ve all seen a million times.

The Big Guys

But this post isn’t really about Sanders and Warren or the ongoing Presidential campaign, but rather about the nature of power and those who seek it.

Here in the United States the power game election season is loud, long, looney and laughable. If Sanders or Warren loses this election they can just try again, or vanish in to a dignified well funded retirement.

But in other nuclear weapons states the power game is a ruthless fight to the death. If you play and lose the power game in Iran, Russia, China or North Korea you can easily wind up in prison or your grave. In these societies getting to the top is high stakes poker, with every one of your chips on the table.

In America, what kind of person wants power so bad that they are willing to run for President around the clock for years?

In the dictatorships, what kind of person wants power so bad that they are willing to put everything on the line, their family, their fortune, their life?

I’m not a psychiatrist, so I’ll offer no theories about what’s going on in the hearts and souls of those who want power so badly.

But that is who we must persuade to give up nuclear weapons, the tiny few at the very top whose entire lives revolve around the need for power.

What About Trump? What About Obama?

Getting rid of nuclear weapons will require a broad consensus of the public. This political reality has implications for how we pursue nuclear weapons activism.

No politician or political party will be able to take a step as large as getting rid of nuclear weapons on their own. If one party were to pass a no nukes law on a party line vote against the objections of the other party, the other party would simply undo the law the next time they were in power. Real sustainable change in our nuclear weapons policy will require broad agreement across the political spectrum.

What this means for nuclear weapons activists is that, whatever our own personal political leanings might be, we need to take care not to alienate those who lean in another direction. Whatever side of the aisle we call home, we’re going to need those on the other side to get rid of nuclear weapons.

The Gun In Our Mouth

The following example may illustrate why taking the usual partisan political shots at those in another party is not a serious act of nuclear weapons activism.

Imagine for a moment that I show up at your home for Thanksgiving dinner with a loaded gun in my mouth. I’m sure you’ll agree that this would not be an appropriate moment to have a debate about gun control laws, the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, the NRA, or those groups which oppose the NRA. In such a situation the proper focus would of course instead be to get the gun out of my mouth as soon as possible.

I’ve offered the above example because nuclear weapons are a gun in the mouth of our entire civilization. And so, just as in the example above, it isn’t appropriate or useful to apply our usual patterns of partisan political squabbling to an existential crisis which threatens all of us equally.

What Is The Appropriate Approach For Nuclear Weapons Activists?

Nuclear weapons activists should focus on the nuclear weapons threat, and not any politician or political party.

So for example, if someone, or someone else, proposes spending tons of money to update the nuclear arsenal so that it will last another century, we can and should oppose such a proposal. But we should oppose such proposals without demonizing whoever made the proposal.

Yes, demonizing one’s opponents is a time honored tradition that goes all the way back to the founding of America. Such political conflict is routine and normal.

But nuclear weapons are not a normal issue. They aren’t just one more topic we can take to cable news and the Internet to squabble about. Nuclear weapons are instead a hair trigger loaded gun in the mouth of everyone on every side in every party.

No single person or political party will be able to remove the nuclear gun on their own. We either do it together, or it doesn’t get done. And in that case, everyone in every party loses. The only way any of us win on this issue is if we come together, while there is still time.

So What About Trump?

And what about the Democratic candidates for the Presidency?

Well, when it comes to nuclear weapons, all of the above seem more or less the same. None of our political leaders seem to express much interest in nuclear weapons, and to my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong here) none have called for their elimination.

While this state of affairs is very unfortunate, it comes with the silver lining of making it easier for nuclear weapons activists to address our message in a non-partisan manner to everyone in every political party.

Nuclear Weapons? Australia Has No Way To Build Them, Even If We Wanted To

Public support may be shifting in favour of nuclear energy in Australia, but there remains significant opposition to nuclear weapons. Sean Davey/AAP

Article By: Heiko Timmers, UNSW

In his latest book, strategist and defence analyst Hugh White has gone nuclear, triggering a debate about whether Australia should develop and maintain its own nuclear arsenal.

But developing and sustaining modern nuclear weapons requires a certain combination of technologies and industries that Australia simply does not have. In fact, it may be safely estimated on the basis of approval and construction times for nuclear power reactors in other western countries that it would take some 20 years to establish such capabilities in the present legal and economic environment.

Opting for nuclear weapons also fails to consider the global implications of Australia abandoning its almost 50-year stance against nuclear proliferation.

The First Step: Nuclear Power Generation

White argues quite rightly that China may eventually overtake the US in terms of its industrial production and military reach. Speculating that this could entail a strategic withdrawal of the US from the western Pacific, he suggests Australia might find itself without the American defence umbrella to deter Chinese influence, or worse.


Read more: With China’s swift rise as naval power, Australia needs to rethink how it defends itself


But Australia would struggle to replace its long and successful alliance with the US with a limited nuclear deterrence capability. Even ignoring the issues generally involved in adopting new defence capabilities – evident in the many problems hindering Australia’s efforts to replace its ageing submarine fleet – the idea is fanciful given our current stance on nuclear energy.

Nuclear power reactors, uranium enrichment plants, missile technology and high-tech electronics manufacturing would all be essential to support truly independent efforts to develop a compact nuclear weapon that could be delivered by missile from a submarine and kept in a permanent state of readiness.

Neither power reactors nor enrichment facilities exist in Australia today, despite some pioneering research in both areas in the past.

Australia’s missile development and high-tech electronics sectors, meanwhile, are in catch-up mode or in their infancy due to years of economic reliance on mining, tourism and services. Advancing and establishing nuclear industries for the sole purpose of developing a nuclear weapons program would neither be practically nor economically viable.

Political Will For Nuclear Energy?

The only way such industries could be developed realistically would be if Australia added nuclear power to its suite of power generation technologies.

Of course, Australia has large uranium deposits and a well-established uranium mining and export industry. And there appears to be increasing public support for nuclear power. A recent survey found that 44% of Australians support nuclear power plants, up four points since the question was last asked in 2015. Other polls indicate support might even be higher.

A well-developed nuclear power industry would eventually give Australia almost all the necessary technologies, personnel and materials to make and maintain a nuclear weapon. This includes, in particular, the ability to enrich uranium and breed plutonium.


Read more: A short history of Australia’s love/hate relationship with uranium


But herein lies the problem. Even if the public did eventually support a nuclear energy program, it remains unclear whether the necessary political will would be there.

Legally, the Howard government banned domestic nuclear power plants in the late 1990s – an act that would now need to be overturned by parliament.

In 2006, the federal government commissioned an inquiry led by Ziggy Switkowski into the future feasibility of nuclear power generation in Australia. The final report found that nuclear energy would be 20-50% more expensive than coal without carbon pricing. It also said a nuclear power industry would take between 10 and 15 years to establish.

Ziggy Switkowski, a former nuclear physicist, was chosen by the Howard government to lead the inquiry into nuclear energy in Australia. Glenn Hunt/AAP

Recently, Energy Minister Angus Taylor said the Morrison government was open to reversing the country’s nuclear energy ban, but only if there was a “clear business case” to do so. With the current widespread availability of cheaper, renewable energies in Australia, this makes the economics of nuclear power generation less convincing.

Lastly, in order to ensure true self-reliance, a delivery option for a nuclear weapon would have to be developed without purchasing technologies from other countries, such as the US. This would be incredibly costly and difficult to do.

When it comes to this sort of missile technology and high-tech electronics manufacturing, Australia is currently not leading in research and development.

Australia’s Long-Time Stance Against Nuclear Weapons

Even though Australia is not in a position to contemplate nuclear weapons due to its technological and industrial limitations, there are moral arguments against pursuing such a goal that should be considered carefully.

The country has been at the forefront of the international non-proliferation movement, ratifying both the UN Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1973 and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1998.

A 2018 poll also showed that 78.9% of Australians supported joining the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, while only 7.7% were opposed.

Australians should remind themselves that these treaties have greatly contributed to peace and security in the world. Abandoning such longstanding principles of its foreign policy, which are aimed at creating a better, more peaceful world, would be an implosion of Australian character of massive proportions.

Heiko Timmers, Associate Professor of Physics, UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.