Doc's Talk: South America Goes Nuclear: Now Brazil

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

South America Goes Nuclear: Now Brazil

In Venezuela, Russia is building naval capabilities, including nuclear-powered guided-missile cruisers and anti-submarine ships. Chile's Scorpène class submarine can be fitted with missiles. Argentina is also eyeing nuclear-powered submarines, equipped, however, at least for now, with conventional weapons.

Brazil, a party to the Non Proliferation Treaty, is reportedly planning to develop indigenously a nuclear-propulsion system: the nation's first submarine is expected to be operational by 2017; its first nuclear submarine by 2023.[1]
If Brazil develops a nuclear submarine, it would be South America's first,[2] and enable Brazil to project itself as a "developed country with sophisticated industry capable of absorbing, mastering and using advanced technologies."[3]
The nuclear submarine program is based on Pressurised Water Reactors, which enable a submarine to deliver a large amount of power from very low amount of energy, Brazil could could use either Low Enriched Uranium, nuclear fuel enriched up to 20% which is "easier and less expensive to acquire,"[4] or Highly Enriched Uranium, processed between 50-90%.

Evidently prompted by the lessons of Falklands War of 1982, as well as by a desire to protect Brazil's large off-shore oil reserves in the Amazon region, Brazil took its first step toward establishing a sea-based deterrent in 2009, when its leadership decided to develop five submarines -- some of them nuclear-powered.

Background

During the Falklands War, a British nuclear-powered submarine sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano, propelling both Argentina and Brazil to recognize the importance of a strong navy.[5] As Brazil has always advocated Argentina's claims over the Falkland Islands,[6] an increased projection of power from Brazil could be of concern to Britain.
At present, Brazil's navy, built largely in cooperation with France[7] is seen as a "key part of the country's new national armaments and defence strategy." [8] Submarines are "a key part of Brazil's effort to build a modern navy that can defend its oil and trade interests in the South Atlantic, a region long dominated by British and U.S. navies,"[9] where United States "patrolled, shadowed, trailed and tracked Soviet strategic submarines as part of their forward deployment strategy."[10]
The naval expert Ambassador Paul D. Taylor[11] has pointed out three maritime goals in Brazil's national defence concept: "Sea denial, control of maritime areas, and power projection."[12] Brazil's navy is responsible for the protection of some 7400 km of coastline, of which, submarines would form an integral component.[13] The submarines could be used not only to attack the lines of communication of adversaries, but also for power projection "through the disembarkation of special forces, for intelligence collection, and for laying mines".[14]
The Scorpène class conventional submarine designed to maximise stealth and have low acoustic, magnetic, electro-magnetic, and infra-red signatures [15]is reportedly to be used for "anti-submarine warfare, special operations and intelligence collection."[16] Flexible cables to be used are for reduction of noise; and special low-noise emission components for rotating machinery. [17] Conventional submarines, however, may not be sufficient to protect Brazil's oil wealth; hence, the need for nuclear powered submarines.

The Scorpène-class submarine Carrera SS-24, in service with the Chilean navy. (Photo source: WikiMedia Commons)

Mauricio Santoro, a political scientist, writes that the nuclear submarine technology would enable the Brazilian navy to "create a "production prototype,"[18] which could be used subsequently in other naval vessels, such as aircraft carriers.
Brazil is part of the BRICS group of emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China, South Africa). All members except South Africa have ventured into nuclear powered submarine programs. Brazil may also be concerned about Chile's submarine capabilities. Although Chile does not possess any nuclear attack submarines, its Scorpène class submarine can be fitted with anti-ship and anti-submarine torpedoes as well as anti-surface missiles.[19] An advantage with Scorpène class submarines is that they can be fitted with air-independent propulsion, which means they can stay submerged for a longer duration than those with conventional propulsion. Argentina is also eyeing nuclear powered submarines, but equipped, at least for now, with conventional weapons.
In Venezuela, Russia is building naval capabilities, including nuclear-powered guided-missile cruisers and anti-submarine ships.
Nuclear submarines would, therefore, in the words of Brazilian President Rousseff, "allow [Brazil] to affirm itself on the world stage, and, above all, develop in an independent sovereign way

Towards Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

Brazil's nuclear submarine would apparently mean a "revival of nuclear development by the Brazilian military that was halted in 1990 with the end of the country's nuclear bomb program."[20] In 2000, however, Brazil's government began exploring a civil nuclear program. Even though Brazil is officially a party to the Non Proliferation Treaty, former President Lula da Silva criticized the NPT as discriminatory toward non-nuclear-weapons states. Brazil's unwillingness to join the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty further signals efforts toward nuclearization.
Venezuela's close collaboration with Russia and Iran may result in the proliferation of nuclear material or weapons from these countries to Venezuela. There were reports in 2011 that Venezuela, in collaboration with Iran, was building missiles deployed within range of the United States.
Brazil would be reasonable to conclude that even basic nuclear capability could deter hostile South American states or other rival attempts on its vast oil resources.
Brazil's constitution bans the development of nuclear weapons; also, as a member of Agência Brasileiro-Argentina de Contabilidade e Côntrole de Materiais Nucleares (ABACC), the country would be subject to the monitoring of all nuclear stockpiles. Still, the agency's ability to prevent Brazil from becoming nuclear state is questionable. Moreover, the NPT has a loophole for the non-nuclear-weapons states: in a "critical non-proliferation concern for international community," [21] members can legitimately stockpile large amounts of enriched, weapons-grade uranium, resulting, as with Brazil, in their drifting away from the treaty.[22]
Of note, therefore, is Brazil's support for the development of nuclear weapons as a crucial tool of deterrence: to portray itself as an important player in international politics and possibly an eventual bid for permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council.
Brazil carries out its nuclear submarine construction in areas it considers "restricted military areas" that bar investigation from the International Atomic Energy Agency. As nuclear submarines require enriched uranium, Brazil could disguise its submarine development as a means to develop nuclear weapons.

Deterrence

Existential deterrence -- the product of a mode of thought that emphasizes military capabilities over diplomacy and rhetoric -- has, in the nuclear age, been acclaimed by many states as a strategic necessity. As has been stated: "Potential opponents would be expected to draw conclusions about the capacity and will which would inform their own posture and actions."[23] Brazil therefore asserts its nuclear powered submarines as a peaceful deterrent and not a weapon of war.
Since the Cold War era, common belief has held that mutual assured destruction ["MAD",] especially with a stated policy of "no first use," can be strengthened with the deployment of nuclear-powered submarines. Brazil may well determine that if it acquires nuclear capability, at least some of its weapons could survive an enemy's first strike and thereby deter further attempts at aggression.

Conclusion

By stating that submarines would be used for defensive roles only, Brazil apparently tries to make clear, as the analyst William Goncalvez stated, that it has "strategic needs," but no desire to fuel an "arms race….nor does it want to be a military power."[24]
At a time when countries such as China, Russia, and Iran are intensifying their efforts to deny to their adversaries access to certain areas,[25] Brazil's nuclear-powered submarines could also enable the country to enhance its sea-denial capabilities. Brazil's nuclear-powered submarine is expected to have a "world wide reach, deep water stealth, and strike capability."[26] The submarine could further be used for finding and tracking enemy submarines and to carry out covert missions for intelligence gathering.
The cost of building the fleet of submarines would be high, estimated up to USD $4 billion. As such, Brazil's domestic problems might cause a reduction to its defense budget. Moreover, the Brazilian navy has had an uneven experience with its French Sao Paulo aircraft carrier which, when deployed,[27] has undergone a number of mechanical problems.
Brazil's submarine capabilities could, of course, enable it to take part in warfare away from Brazil's borders. When under the threat of nuclear war, having the capability to wage a war distant from the homefront is advantageous. Although, under the Treaty of Tlalelolco of 1967, Latin America is at present is a nuclear-weapons-free zone, Brazil's move towards nuclearization could prompt Venezuela and Argentina to follow suit.
Brazil could also eventually develop SSBNs(ship-submersible ballistic missile nuclear-powered submarines), which can fire submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and which are one of the components of a nuclear triad -- to move towards a credible deterrent. Brazil could choose to develop submarine-launched missiles or torpedoes. In the long run, the nuclear attack submarines could be converted to submarines capable of carrying nuclear-powered cruise missiles. Only then can Brazil strengthen its Continuous-at-Sea Deterrent, or the ability of a submarine armed with nuclear missiles to be on constant patrol.
These nuclear developments in Brazil are worth watching closely: the precariousness of deterrence, or of collapsed or ineffective deterrence, easily leads to all-out war.

Debalina Ghoshal is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies, India.

[1] "Brazil to build first nuclear submarines", Xinhua News, March 2, 2013.
[2] "Brazil to build nuclear submarines which will dramatically alter balance of power in South America", Mail Online, July 19, 2013.
[3] Fabiana Frayssinet, "Brazil's new nuclear subs to defend oil fields", AL JAZEERA, July 23, 2011.
[4] Serener Kelleher-Vergantini, "Brazil Moves Toward Nuclear Submarine", ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION, April 2013.
[5] At present, Brazil fields the SSK Tikuna and SSK Tupi class SSKs. SSKs are conventional attack submarines. In the United States, the Navy used SS to classify that the vessel was a submarine (and K was to denote the submarine was a hunter killer. SSK was the hull classification symbol of the United States' Navy.
[6] NOTE: Since oil reserves have been discovered in the Falkland Islands, further tensions have risen in the region.
[7] Note: Brazil's partner has been France DCNS (Direction Technique des Constructions Navales) and Brazil's Odebrecht -- as well as Spain, albeit with French enhancements.
[8]"Brazil & France in Deal for SSKs, SSN", DEFENSE INDUSTRY DAILY, April 11, 2013.
[9] Anthony Boadle, UPDATE 1- Brazil launches program to build nuclear submarine in a decade", REUTERS, March 1, 2013.
[10] Vijay Sakhuja, "Sea Based Deterrence and Indian Security", IDSA,
<http://www.idsa-india.org/an-apr-2.01.htm>
[11] Ambassador Taylor was Foreign Service officer and navy veteran.
[12] Paul D. Taylor, "Why Does Brazil Need Nuclear Submarine?", U.S. Naval Institute, June 2009, Vol. 135/6/1,276.
[13] Brazil Submarine Capabilities, Nuclear Threat Initiative, July 18, 2013.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Fabiana, n.3.
[16] "Brazil To Get Its First Nuclear Submarine", Defense News, March 2, 2013.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Fabiana, n.3.
[19] SSK Scorpene Class Attack Submarine, France, naval-technology.com
[20]Brazil launches program to build nuclear submarine in a decade, n.8.
[21] Greg Thielmann, Wyatt Hoffman, "Submarine Nuclear Reactors: A Worsening Proliferation Challenge", Arms Control Association, July 26, 2012.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Michael Codner, "DEFINING DETERRENCE: Framing Deterrence in the 21^st Century", May 18^th-19^th, 2009.
[24] Fabiana Frayssinet, n.8.
[25] It is a naval concept in which states develop military build up at sea in order to prevent the military dominance of another power in a particular region.
[26] "Brazil builds fleet to parade military on world stage", WORLD REVIEW
[27] Ibid.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk