Expert says nuclear submarines are industrial strategy, not a budget drain

· UPI

Dec. 18 (Asia Today) -- Nuclear-powered submarines should be viewed as an industrial, technology and energy strategy before they are treated as a defense procurement project, Hanyang University public policy professor Moon Geun-sik said, arguing that South Korea risks losing ground in future maritime industries if it delays an SSN program.

Moon, a special professor at Hanyang University's Graduate School of Public Policy, said the public debate often starts from a flawed premise: that nuclear-powered submarines are simply expensive weapons systems and therefore a "black hole" for defense spending.

Below is an edited Q&A from an interview with Moon.

Q: You have said the "question itself is flawed" in South Korea's nuclear submarine debate. Why?

Related

A: The debate evaluates nuclear-powered submarines only as "expensive weapons." If you look only at the price of a single vessel, it naturally feels burdensome. But a nuclear submarine is not merely a combat platform. It is a national convergence project of the highest complexity, combining reactor design and safety technology, nuclear fuel cycle management, radiation safety, advanced shipbuilding, welding and new materials, along with automated control and digital technology. Once it is defined as a defense budget black hole, its ripple effects disappear from the discussion.

Q: You say similar arguments have appeared before. What do you mean?

A: Look at 1954, when the United States built the world's first nuclear submarine, the USS Nautilus. At the time, criticism also raged that it was a massive waste of budget. The arguments were almost identical to those being repeated today.

Q: What changed after the Nautilus in the United States, in your view?

A: The Nautilus did not just create one naval asset. That project contributed to the construction of the world's first commercial nuclear power plant, the Shippingport plant. After that, the United States made a major leap in nuclear power, energy, electricity, metals, welding and new materials. It was a turning point where military technology expanded into civilian energy and industrial innovation.

Q: How do you respond to those who say today's debate is simply about cost?

A: Repeating "it costs too much" misses the essence. The real question is not the size of the budget, but what future industries that budget will create. Nuclear submarine development costs are not only defense spending. They are strategic national investments that cultivate advanced technical talent, expand future energy infrastructure and build ecosystems for shipbuilding, nuclear power, ICT and AI industries.

Q: France and Brazil are sometimes cited as examples. Why?

A: France placed nuclear submarines at the center of its national industrial strategy. Reactor, fuel, shipbuilding, electronics, defense and energy industries form a single ecosystem. Brazil is also trying to expand nuclear fuel, reactor and deep-sea structure technologies into civilian industries through its low-enriched uranium nuclear submarine project. These show that nuclear submarine technology is not only for defense.

Q: How does nuclear propulsion translate beyond submarines?

A: The United States, Russia and China apply nuclear propulsion in fields such as icebreakers, polar research vessels and Arctic energy platforms. Russia operates the world's only commercial nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet and uses it to secure Arctic shipping logistics. That capability is a strategic asset in its energy supply chain.

Q: What could change for South Korea if it secures nuclear propulsion technology?

A: New maritime markets would open, including polar research vessels, icebreakers, LNG carriers and deep-sea resource exploration ships. South Korea has world-class shipbuilding, but it faces a constraint at the final hurdle: propulsion technology. Nuclear propulsion could overcome that hurdle and elevate shipbuilding, energy and logistics to the next level.

Q: What about the military impact?

A: Nuclear submarines are not only platforms that can stay submerged for long periods. They change deterrence. Their endurance and stealth can secure strategic initiative even in an anti-access and area denial maritime environment. That translates into stronger bargaining power in diplomacy and security. It strengthens industry and security at the same time.

Q: How should the project be structured, in your view?

A: A nuclear submarine is a national mega-scale convergence project integrating reactor technology, fuel cycle management, radiation safety, shipbuilding, welding and new materials, deep-sea sensors and electronic warfare, ICT and AI automation and defense and diplomatic strategy. It is a foundational project for future competitiveness, not only defense.

Q: What kind of governance structure do you believe is needed?

A: A nuclear submarine project is unlikely to succeed as a standalone Defense Ministry initiative. Like the United States and France, a national nuclear submarine project team directly under the presidential office should be established. In the longer term, it should expand into a project management office overseeing nuclear-powered vessels, uniting defense, industry, nuclear energy, science and technology, diplomacy and finance.

Moon is scheduled to appear on Ato TV's "Koo Pil-hyun's Military" at 3 p.m. on Dec. 24 to discuss the topic further, according to the program.

- Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.