With its withdrawal from Afghanistan and the decision to end the programs that characterized the American conflicts of the last two decades, the Pentagon of the Joe Biden administration is planning long-term competitions against China and Russia. That is why the United States wants to move forward with the Pele Mobile Nuclear Reactor Project.
Designed to power remote troops, Pele is prepared to fight the last war, which lacked high-level threats and during which vulnerable fuel convoys were a significant source of American casualties.
The Pentagon has asked Congress if it will be able to spend 60 million dollars on Pele, although Congress does not quite see this clear since the United States would become the main target of the Chinese, Russian, North Korean and Iranian armies. To deal with the threat of attack, Pele’s fuel would have to be stable and resistant to melting.
In the event of a major attack, the fuel could be buried in the debris, preventing it from dissipating heat and causing it to exceed its design temperature. And even if the fuel remains intact, it is radioactive and would create a contamination risk once released from the reactor by an attack.
The problem is not the viability of this technology. Small reactors like Pele should be able to provide electrical power to forward operating bases and could, together with electric or hybrid vehicles, almost eliminate the need for fuel convoys on the front lines.
The problem in the use of nuclear reactors
The problem is that power generation equipment and other supporting infrastructure are at the top of China and Russia’s target lists. China’s newest ballistic missiles can launch warheads ranging from explosive munitions to high-speed tungsten rods, while recent strikes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh demonstrated the lethality of Russian, Chinese, Turkish missiles and drones. and Iranians. These weapons could cause disastrous damage to a reactor plant.
American troops do not want to have reactors that they know would be a target of attack for enemies. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, where governments were in debt to the United States and guided weapons threats were non-existent, American troops facing China would have to operate on Japanese, Australian or Philippine soil – nations harboring strong anti-nuclear sentiments. . US governments in Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands may have fewer options in this regard, but residents are unlikely to receive new radioactive targets for Chinese missiles.
The project has great backing
NASA and the Department of Energy are backing the project as these reactors can be used to power remote settlements or polar and lunar stations. US forces could reduce the threat to mobile jets by pulling them out of the front. However, moving these reactors away from the front would bring them closer to the civilian population.
There are also other forms of energy such as solar or wind that are used by the commercial industry. Progress is also being made in the use of batteries for energy storage. Combining these different energy sources could be another alternative for the United States and more effective than Pele. Therefore, Congress should redirect the budget that would be used in Pele to exploit these new energy approaches.