News

Alaska saw risks from nuclear weapons in 1964: Will it see future risks from nuclear microreactors?

M.Wright32 min ago

A Nike Hercules missile is at the Nike Site Summit on top of Mt. Gordon Lyon in Anchorage. A site tour docent is standing in front of the missile. In the 1960s, Nike Hercules missiles carried nuclear warheads. (Photo by Lawrence D. Weiss)

rocked and crumpled Anchorage and environs. The magnitude 9.2 quake lasted four and one-half minutes, killed over 130 people, and damaged or destroyed much of Anchorage. It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in North America. But it could have been worse. Much worse.

The "cold war" was raging in the 1960s. Our apocalyptic vision of war included hordes of Soviet bombers armed with nuclear weapons swarming the skies of America. According to the Nike Historical Society, "The state of Alaska was the first stop for Soviet bombers on the way to the lower 48. Flying over Alaska was the shortest distance between Soviet bomber bases in Russia and strategic targets in the lower 48."

As a result, Alaska was home to several batteries of Nike Hercules missiles. Each missile was 41 feet long and weighed about 10,000 pounds. It traveled 3,000 miles per hour, could climb to over 100,000 feet, and had a range of over 75 miles. It typically carried a 20 or 40 kiloton warhead—up to 3 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

There were three Nike Hercules batteries in and around Anchorage in 1964. These included:

  • Site Point (A Battery) a double battery located in Kinkaid Park by the Anchorage International Airport, with 28 missiles;

  • Site Summit (B Battery) located in the Chugach Mountains at an elevation of 4,000 feet, with 14 missiles; and

  • Site Bay (C Battery) in the Knik Arm of the Cook Inlet, at Goose Bay across from Fort Richardson, with 14 missiles.

  • The missiles were stored horizontally in above-ground reinforced concrete bunkers . They rested on wheeled cradles that rolled out a short railroad track just before launch, then were raised to a nearly vertical position for launch. However, reinforced concrete bunkers were no match for the earthquake. Stationed at the time at Site Point by the airport, Donald Dukes described what he saw after the earthquake at Site Point:

    "We went inside the first launcher section of the fire unit on 'hot status' after prying open the blast doors. It was a big mess. No complete missile round was intact on the tracked launchers or handling rails. All the yoke structures had been sheared. The skins were gouged open; fins bent in all directions. Solid propellants cracked and the rocket motor covers were off. Strong stench from the exposed rocket propellant. Arming lanyards were pulled, energizing the on-board battery-operated electrical power systems and gyros were spinning. Large components strung across the handling rails and launchers and on the floor, in all directions. Each missile representing upwards of 5 tons of high explosive just waiting for the initial spark to set off the entire lot... [After 40 years] I still have nightmares about what I saw in the first launcher section immediately after the earthquake."

    I have lived in Anchorage since 1982. I missed out on the Nike Hercules near-apocalyptic disaster, but I'd like to know what the current situation is. In 2019 Capt. Bryant Davis , a spokesperson for Alaskan Command, wrote in an email that Air Force Global Strike Command could neither "confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons" in Alaska, according to Alaska Public Media. Hmm. Not reassuring.

    In recent years there has been a big push by private corporations to plop down a few nuclear "microreactors" around Alaska. And how would these fare in "the next big one?"

    The closest answer I have found to that question is based on a major study by the Union of Concerned Scientists which determined, "Based on the available evidence, we found that the [nuclear microreactor] designs we analyzed are not likely to be significantly safer than today's nuclear plants. In fact, certain alternative reactor designs pose even more safety, proliferation, and environmental risks than the current fleet."

    Finally, could various state regulatory agencies play a role in monitoring earthquake safety of nuclear facilities? No, they can't. In 2022 the governor signed off on "Senate Bill 177: Relating to nuclear facility siting permits; and relating to microreactors." This bill specifically exempts nuclear microreactors from requirements that several regulatory departments study and make "...the recommendations for the enactment of laws or amendments to law administered by [them]..." Further, the law exempts nuclear microreactors from "...proposals [by several departments] for amendments to the regulations issued by [them that they] consider necessary."

    Philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." We are repeating it.

    0 Comments
    0