The only country constructing nuclear icebreakers is Russia, ships they use in the frozen artic waterways of the Northern Sea. Following Russia’s success in extracting oil deposits using nuclear icebreakers, alongside the first nuclear icebreaker reaching the north pole, the US naturally craves some of the action.
Currently, The US has the most powerful non-nuclear icebreakers. As ice melts, the Artic zones are becoming more accessible- opening oil reserves along the seabed. These nuclear icebreakers could allow the US to control the artic region. However, is spending a costly amount on a nuclear icebreaker wise?
Using relative icebreaker fleet sizes and speeds as a key metric for the state of strategic competition in the Artic is flawed. They do not defend the most challenging issues in the area including: the nuclear weapons problem or China’s use of icebreakers to divert nuclear attacks. This mischaracterization of the scope of danger is emphasising unsuitable solutions. The USA’s main geostrategic downfall is its inability to be contained in trade relations that do not benefit themselves. This problem is amplified by Donald Trump; it cannot be beneficial to have more icebreaker nuclear accidents like those of the Russian Lenin.
-Lilly Horvath-Makkos
Comments