DOCSLIB.ORG

Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2A: United States - Submarines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2A: United States - Submarines Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2A: United States - Submarines Peter Lobner July 2018 1 Foreword In 2015, I compiled the first edition of this resource document to support a presentation I made in August 2015 to The Lyncean Group of San Diego (www.lynceans.org) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by USS Nautilus on 17 January 1955. That presentation to the Lyncean Group, “60 years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015,” was my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the US Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with USS Nautilus’ historic first voyage, and then tracing the development and exploitation of marine nuclear power over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations. In July 2018, I finished a complete update of the resource document and changed the title to, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018.” What you have here is Part 2A: United States - Submarines. The other parts are: Part 1: Introduction Part 2B: United States - Surface Ships Part 3A: Russia - Submarines Part 3B: Russia - Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications Part 4: Europe & Canada Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations Part 6: Arctic Operations 2 Foreword This resource document was compiled from unclassified, open sources in the public domain. I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have published material in print or posted information on the internet pertaining to international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear powered vessels, naval weapons systems, and other marine nuclear applications. My resource document contains a great deal of graphics from many sources. Throughout the document, I have identified all of the sources for these graphics. If you have any comments or wish to identify errors in this document, please send me an e-mail to: [email protected]. I hope you find this informative, useful, and different from any other single document on this subject. Best regards, Peter Lobner July 2018 3 Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2A: United States - Submarines Table of Contents Section Page Timeline for development of marine nuclear power in the US …………………............ 6 US current nuclear vessel fleet …………………………………………………………………………. 26 US naval nuclear infrastructure …………………………………………………………………………. 31 Use of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in US naval reactors……………………………….. 81 US submarine reactors and prototype facilities …………………………………………………. 93 US Navy nuclear-powered submarines ………………………………………………………………. 131 Nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SSN) ……………………………………………. 134 Submarine-launched torpedoes, anti-submarine missiles & mines …………. 247 Systems to augment submarine operational capabilities ………………………… 270 Nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) ……………………. 284 Submarine-launched strategic ballistic missiles (SLBMs)………………………… 327 Nuclear-powered guided missile submarines (SSGN) …………………………………… 351 Cruise missiles and other tactical guided missiles …………………………………. 369 Nuclear-powered special operations submarines ………………………………………….. 391 4 Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Refer to Part 2B, United States Surface Ships, for the following content related to US marine nuclear power: US Navy nuclear-powered surface ships Naval nuclear vessel decommissioning and nuclear waste management US civilian marine nuclear vessels and reactors US marine nuclear power trends 5 Timeline for development of marine nuclear power in the US 6 Timeline for development of marine nuclear power in the US 17 March 1939: Enrico Fermi briefed the Navy Department on the current state of nuclear fission research and prospects for its application in weapons and power generation. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) physicist and head of the Mechanics and Electricity Division, Ross Gunn, attended this meeting. Later in March 1939, Gunn, with support from the Director of NRL and the head of the Navy’s Bureau of Steam Engineering (a predecessor of BuShips), received funding and initiated an investigation into uranium and nuclear propulsion. This was seven months before the Manhattan Project was established. June 1939: In a memo to the director of NRL, Ross Gunn reported: “Under certain special circumstances of bombardment by neutrons, the heavy element uranium dissociates into two other elements with the evolution of tremendous amounts of energy which may be converted directly into heat and used in a flash boiler steam plant. Such a source of energy does not depend on the oxidation of organic material and therefore does not require that oxygen Dr. Ross Gunn. Source: NRL be carried down in the submarine if uranium is used as a power source. This is a tremendous military advantage and would enormously increase the range and military effectiveness of a submarine.” 7 Timeline for development of marine nuclear power in the US 2 December 1942: A team led by Enrico Fermi established the first controlled, self-sustained nuclear chain reaction in Chicago Pile 1 (CP-1). During WW II: Ross Gunn was a member of the Navy’s Uranium Committee, and, with Philip Abelson, focused on developing the thermal diffusion process for uranium enrichment. mid-1944: Art Snell’s physics experiments at the X-10 reactor in Oak Ridge confirmed that Alvin Weinberg’s concept for a water-moderated, enriched uranium reactor could be made to chain react. August 1944: General Leslie Groves (Director of the Manhattan Project) appointed a committee headed by Dr. Richard C. Tolman, vice chairman of the National Defense Research Committee, to make recommendations on a post-war policy for the development of atomic energy. Rear Admiral E.W. Mills, assistant chief of BuShips was a committee member. In November 1944, the Tolman Committee met at NRL with Ross Gunn, Philip Abelson and NRL director Rear Admiral A.H. von Keuren, who advocated for development of nuclear submarines. In December 1944, the Toleman Committee’s final report urged the government “to initiate and push, as an urgent project, research and development studies to provide power from nuclear sources for the propulsion of naval vessels.” Dr. Richard C. Tolman circa 1945. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/ 8 Timeline for development of marine nuclear power in the US 18 September 1944: Alvin Weinberg first described the basis for a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), with ordinary water as both coolant and moderator operating at high pressure, and producing steam for power production. Late 1945: After WW II, Gunn resumed his work on the use of nuclear power in submarines. At a nuclear symposium organized by Gunn and held at NRL on 19 Nov 1945, papers were presented describing the use of nuclear propulsion in naval vessels, particularly submarines, and even raised the prospects of ballistic missiles launched from submarines. Further Navy access to nuclear research was hindered by General Leslie Grove, who was unwilling to release information to anyone outside the Manhattan District without Dr. Alvin Weinberg. Presidential authorization. Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory 14 March 1946: Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal sent a letter to Secretary of War Robert Patterson stating the Navy’s desire to undertake the engineering of atomic power for ship propulsion and assume responsibility for the program. Secretary Patterson replied that the Manhattan District had taken the first steps toward developing an atomic pile (the Oak Ridge Daniels Pile) and that the best and most rapid method for initiating a Navy program was to assign Navy personnel to the Manhattan District. 9 Timeline for development of marine nuclear power in the US Early 1946: Abelson led a small team at Clinton Laboratories (Oak Ridge, TN) that investigated the feasibility of replacing the diesel and battery power system with a nuclear power plant within the physical constraints of a modern conventional submarine; specifically a advanced German Type XXVI. Abelson presented the results in the report, “The Atomic Energy Submarine,” dated 28 March 1946. Abelson concluded that it was feasible to construct an atomic power plant of a size and output suitable for ship propulsion. This marked the first reported Navy interest in liquid metal coolants for reactors: "Thermal energy generated in the atomic 'pile' would be transferred to liquid sodium-potassium (KNa) alloy recirculated through the pile," states Abelson. "This heat would drive a steam turbine...and the pile, together with its shielding and the KNa heat exchanger, would be located outside the pressure hull along the keel of the submarine. It would be necessary for the pile to be a cube that could conform to the Dr. Philip Abelson. Source: NRL streamline shape of the hull. This arrangement would allow for convenient maintenance and replacement in drydock.” April 1946: NRL forwarded this report to the Bureau of Ships. 10 The Gunn-Abelson 1946 submarine nuclear propulsion plant design concept Source: Drawing by Philbeck in N. Polmar, “Atomic Submarines,” D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1963, p. 68 11 Timeline for development of marine nuclear power in the US 10 April 1946: Alvin Weinberg and F. H. Murray (Oak Ridge, Clinton Laboratory) publish, “High- pressure water as a heat-transfer medium in nuclear power plants,” in which the design characteristics of a water cooled and moderated pressurized- water reactor (PWR) were presented.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Navy Columbia-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
    Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 14, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41129 Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program Summary The Navy’s Columbia (SSBN-826) class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program is a program to design and build a class of 12 new SSBNs to replace the Navy’s current force of 14 aging Ohio-class SSBNs. Since 2013, the Navy has consistently identified the Columbia-class program as the Navy’s top priority program. The Navy procured the first Columbia-class boat in FY2021 and wants to procure the second boat in the class in FY2024. The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $3,003.0 (i.e., $3.0 billion) in procurement funding for the first Columbia-class boat and $1,644.0 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in advance procurement (AP) funding for the second boat, for a combined FY2022 procurement and AP funding request of $4,647.0 million (i.e., about $4.6 billion). The Navy’s FY2022 budget submission estimates the procurement cost of the first Columbia- class boat at $15,030.5 million (i.e., about $15.0 billion) in then-year dollars, including $6,557.6 million (i.e., about $6.60 billion) in costs for plans, meaning (essentially) the detail design/nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the Columbia class. (It is a long-standing Navy budgetary practice to incorporate the DD/NRE costs for a new class of ship into the total procurement cost of the first ship in the class.) Excluding costs for plans, the estimated hands-on construction cost of the first ship is $8,473.0 million (i.e., about $8.5 billion).
    [Show full text]
  • October 02, 1963 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force'
    Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified October 02, 1963 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force' Citation: “Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force',” October 02, 1963, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, National Archives, The Hague, Council of Ministers, access number 2.02.05.02, inventory number 753 and 723. Obtained and translated by Bastiaan Bouwman. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/117766 Summary: Paper presented at 4 October 1963 meeting of the Dutch Council of Ministers. The paper lays out the reasons for declining to participate in the Multilateral Force so far, but argues that due to changes in the situation – principally a turn on the part of the British toward participation – the Netherlands now should move to participate in the talks. The paper lists the (political) advantages of such participation. Credits: This document was made possible with support from the Leon Levy Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY). Original Language: Dutch Contents: English Translation Scan of Original Document [...] SECRET Paper regarding Dutch participation in talks regarding a multilateral nuclear force . On 1 August of this year, the Council of Ministers agreed that for now the invitation by the American government to participate in talks of a working group in Washington regarding the establishment of a NATO multilateral nuclear force, consisting of surface ships with mixed crews, would not be acted upon. This invitation had been accepted by the Federal Republic, Italy, Greece and Turkey. Along with the Netherlands, the UK and Belgium decided to remain on the sidelines for the time being.
    [Show full text]
  • Announced United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945
    MARSHALL ISLANDS FILE TRACKING DOCUMENT Record Number: 537 1 File Name (TITLE): Document Number (ID): Addditional Information: OrMIbox: 2.V .:” CyMIbox: DOE/NV-209 (Rev.1 3) May 1993 UC-700 Announced United States Nuclear Tests July 1945 Through December 1992 Prepared by: U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office Office of External Affairs This publication supersedes DOE/NV-209 (Rev. 12). dated May 1992 This publication has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from: Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 (6151 5768401, FTS 626-8401 Available to the public from: National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Price: Printed Copy A05 Microfiche A01 .- _- __ - ._ _. _- --- .-. - .--- --- ---.-- .._ _.._i Announced United States Nuclear Tests July 1945 Through December 1992 This document lists chronologically and alphabetically by event name all nuclear tests conducted and announced by the United States from July 1945 through December 1992, with the exception of the GMX experiments. The 24 GMX experiments, conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTSJ between December 1954 and February 1956, were ‘equation-of-state” physics studies that used small chemical explosives and small quantities of plutonium. Several tests conducted during Operation Dominic involved missile launches from Johnston Atoll. Several of these missile launches were aborted, resulting in the destruction of the missile and nuclear device either on the pad or in the air. On August 5, 1963, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty which effectively banned testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Security &Defence European
    a sniper rifle 4/ 7.90 18 D 14974 E D European NO TIME? NO LAB? NO PROBLEM. & CZ TSR Security .308 WIN. EASILY IDENTIFY CHEMICAL HAZARDS WITH ES THE FLIR GRIFFIN™ G510 PORTABLE GC-MS. 2018 June/July · Defence & Security European WE KNOW THE SECRET OF ACCURATE & Defence 4/2018 LONG DISTANCE SHOOTING. The FLIR Griffin G510 is a completely self-contained GC-MS, including batteries, carrier gas, vacuum system, injector, touchscreen, and heated International Security and Defence Journal sample probe. It analyzes all phases of matter and confirms vapor-based threats in seconds, so that responders can take immediate action. ISSN 1617-7983 See FLIR in action at Eurosatory: Hall 5a Stand #A267 • OPTION TO FIT THE FOLDING HEIGHT MECHANISM ON ADJUSTABLE EITHER THE RIGHT CHEEKPIECE OR LEFT SIDE HEIGHT AND LENGTH www.euro-sd.com ADJUSTABLE • BUTTPLATE June/July 2018 HIGHLy RESISTANT TO CONTAMINATION DUE TO THE FLUTED BOLT 10-ROUND REMOVABLE METAL MAGAZINE FOR CARTRIDGES UP TO 73 MM TWO STAGE TRIGGER MECHANISM WITH THE OPTION TO SET THE TRIGGER PULL BOLT HANDLE ADAPTED FOR RELIABLE AND RAPID PISTOL GRIP WITH RELOADING WITH STORAGE SPACE AND A RIFLESCOPE ATTACHED INTERCHANGEABLE BACKSTRAPS MaxiMuM MiniMuM Barrel length Width of Weapon (MM) height of Weapon Weight Without With stoCk With stoCk With CheekpieCe With eMpty operating CaliBre Magazine CapaCity fraMe overall length (MM)* overal length (MM)** CoMpensator (MM) folded unfolded retraCted Magazine (g) teMperature range rate of tWist aCCuraCy .308 Win. 10 ALUMINIUM 1237 ± 5mm 920 ± 5mm 660 ± 1 95 ± 2 70± 2 192 ± 2 mm max. 6 300 from -50°C to + 50° 1:11“ Sub MOA FLIR Griffin™ G510 Portable GC-MS #CZGUNS www.FLIR.eu/G510 Chemical Identifier eurosatory2018 WWW.CZUB.CZ [email protected] FACEBOOK.COM/CESKAZBROJOVKA.CZ WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM/CZGUNS/ eurosatory2018 a sniper rifle 4/ 7.90 18 D 14974 E D European NO TIME? NO LAB? NO PROBLEM.
    [Show full text]
  • Submarines in the United States Navy - Wikipedia Page 1 of 13
    Submarines in the United States Navy - Wikipedia Page 1 of 13 Submarines in the United States Navy There are three major types of submarines in the United States Navy: ballistic missile submarines, attack submarines, and cruise missile submarines. All submarines in the U.S. Navy are nuclear-powered. Ballistic subs have a single strategic mission of carrying nuclear submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Attack submarines have several tactical missions, including sinking ships and subs, launching cruise missiles, and gathering intelligence. The submarine has a long history in the United States, beginning with the Turtle, the world's first submersible with a documented record of use in combat.[1] Contents Early History (1775–1914) World War I and the inter-war years (1914–1941) World War II (1941–1945) Offensive against Japanese merchant shipping and Japanese war ships Lifeguard League Cold War (1945–1991) Towards the "Nuclear Navy" Strategic deterrence Post–Cold War (1991–present) Composition of the current force Fast attack submarines Ballistic and guided missile submarines Personnel Training Pressure training Escape training Traditions Insignia Submarines Insignia Other insignia Unofficial insignia Submarine verse of the Navy Hymn See also External links References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines_in_the_United_States_Navy 3/24/2018 Submarines in the United States Navy - Wikipedia Page 2 of 13 Early History (1775–1914) There were various submersible projects in the 1800s. Alligator was a US Navy submarine that was never commissioned. She was being towed to South Carolina to be used in taking Charleston, but she was lost due to bad weather 2 April 1863 off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Princeton Diplomatic Invitational 2020
    Top Secret // ORCON // JENNIFER Princeton Diplomatic Invitational 2020 Project Azorian Chairs: Kris Hristov & Scott Overbey Crisis Director: Gabriel Peña 1 Top Secret // ORCON // JENNIFER Top Secret // ORCON // JENNIFER CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 LETTERS FROM THE STAFF ......................................................................................... 3 COMMITTEE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 5 24 hour format .................................................................................................................... 6 Committee Sessions 1&2 ................................................................................................... 6 Committee Session 3 through 6 ........................................................................................ 6 CURRENT STATUS ............................................................................................................ 7 A Brief Summary of Nuclear Weapons ........................................................................... 7 MAD About You: Nuclear Tactics .................................................................................. 9 Rocketmen: Delivery Systems ......................................................................................... 11 The Red Banner Fleet: The Soviet Nuclear Navy ........................................................ 12 K-129
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Security: a Fortnightly Newsletter from Caps
    NUCLEAR SECURITY: A FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETTER FROM CAPS Vol 13, No. 12, 15 APRIL 2019 OPINION – Manpreet Sethi Perceptions of India’s Nuclear Capability Build- CONTENTS up: Ghost Hunting and a Reality Check OPINION NUCLEAR STRATEGY The basic philosophy of nuclear deterrence in BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE India has not changed, despite recent arguments. Before India conducted its nuclear NUCLEAR ENERGY tests in 1998, its nuclear intentions were a matter NUCLEAR COOPERATION of widespread speculation. Subsequent to the URANIUM PRODUCTION declaration of a doctrine (as a draft in 1999 and NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION then through a press note on 2003) clearly NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION spelling out attributes of its nuclear strategy, conjectures continue to be made on its capability NUCLEAR SAFETY trajectory. Will India stick to minimum deterrence? NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT Is it moving beyond a strategy of deterrence by punishment premised on counter-value retaliation capability beyond what is required for retaliation to developing capabilities that can allow counter- and moving towards pre-emptive counterforce force targeting? Will India options, particularly against then give up its NFU The basic philosophy of nuclear Pakistan. Another article doctrine? deterrence in India has not changed, that contends that India is despite recent arguments. Before India developing nuclear Culling out statements of a conducted its nuclear tests in 1998, its counterforce options that few prominent Indians, nuclear intentions were a matter of extend beyond its w h o o n c e o c c u p i e d widespread speculation. Subsequent to commitment to credible important positions in the declaration of a doctrine clearly minimum deterrence is co- nuclear decision making, spelling out attributes of its nuclear authored by Frank O’Donnell some analysts question strategy, conjectures continue to be and Debalina Ghoshal whether India remains made on its capability trajectory.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Dominic I
    OPERATION DOMINIC I United States Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests Nuclear Test Personnel Review Prepared by the Defense Nuclear Agency as Executive Agency for the Department of Defense HRE- 0 4 3 6 . .% I.., -., 5. ooument. Tbe t k oorreotsd oontraofor that tad oa the book aw ra-ready c I I i I 1 1 I 1 I 1 i I I i I I I i i t I REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NC I NA6OccOF 1 i Technical Report 7. AUTHOR(.) i L. Berkhouse, S.E. Davis, F.R. Gladeck, J.H. Hallowell, C.B. Jones, E.J. Martin, DNAOO1-79-C-0472 R.A. Miller, F.W. McMullan, M.J. Osborne I I 9. PERFORMING ORGAMIIATION NWE AN0 AODRCSS ID. PROGRAM ELEMENT PROJECT. TASU Kamn Tempo AREA & WOW UNIT'NUMSERS P.O. Drawer (816 State St.) QQ . Subtask U99QAXMK506-09 ; Santa Barbara, CA 93102 11. CONTROLLING OFClCC MAME AM0 ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE 1 nirpctor- . - - - Defense Nuclear Agency Washington, DC 20305 71, MONITORING AGENCY NAME AODRCSs(rfdIfI*mI ka CamlIlIU Olllc.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (-1 ah -*) J Unclassified SCHCDULC 1 i 1 I 1 IO. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES This work was sponsored by the Defense Nuclear Agency under RDT&E RMSS 1 Code 6350079464 U99QAXMK506-09 H2590D. For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 19. KEY WOROS (Cmlmm a nm.. mid. I1 n.c...-7 .nd Id.nllh 4 bled nlrmk) I Nuclear Testing Polaris KINGFISH Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) FISHBOWL TIGHTROPE DOMINIC Phase I Christmas Island CHECKMATE 1 Johnston Island STARFISH SWORDFISH ASROC BLUEGILL (Continued) D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio FBM.Pdf
    1 The U.S. Navy has 18 of the most deadly and feared weapons ever created. 2 Let’s look at some facts about America’s last line of Defense…the “Boomers”. 3 Meet the Ohio-class submarine. In naval terms, it makes up the Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines (FBMs). 4 Aside from USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730), all of the Ohio-class subs are named after a state. 5 These 18 weapons are also known as “Trident” subs because they’re a part of America’s “Nuclear Triad”. 6 The Nuclear Triad is our Military’s 3-prong nuclear weapons delivery arsenal which covers Land, Air and Sea. 7 Air: Strategic Bombers (the B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit-pictured above) 8 Land: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs such as the Minuteman III-pictured above) 9 Why do we have a 3-branches of nuclear capabilities? 10 It reduces the chances that another country’s first-strike attack could destroy all of our nuclear delivery system. 11 This means that, in a worst case scenario (nuclear war)… 12 …America has the ability to launch a second attack. 13 What weapon can lurk anywhere in 2/3rds of the Earth? 14 You got it man, our Ohio-class subs. 15 To be specific, the Earth’s surface is made up of 71 percent ocean water (97% of total water on the planet). 16 Aside from the ocean our subs can also enter fresh water such as our Great Lakes (which already has US Navy’s USS Kentucky SSBN-737 and other smaller Los Angeles-class Attack Submarines).
    [Show full text]
  • OSP11: Nuclear Weapons Policy 1967-1998
    OPERATIONAL SELECTION POLICY OSP11 NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY 1967-1998 Revised November 2005 1 Authority 1.1 The National Archives' Acquisition Policy announced the Archive's intention of developing Operational Selection Policies across government. These would apply the collection themes described in the overall policy to the records of individual departments and agencies. 1.2 Operational Selection Policies are intended to be working tools for those involved in the selection of public records. This policy may therefore be reviewed and revised in the light of comments from users of the records or from archive professionals, the experience of departments in using the policy, or as a result of newly discovered information. There is no formal cycle of review, but comments would be welcomed at any time. The extent of any review or revision exercise will be determined according to the nature of the comments received. If you have any comments upon this policy, please e-mail records- [email protected] or write to: Acquisition and Disposition Policy Manager Records Management Department The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU 1.3 Operational Selection Policies do not provide guidance on access to selected records. 2 Scope 2.1 This policy relates to all public records on British nuclear weapons policy and development. The departments and agencies concerned are the Prime Minister’s Office, the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Security Policy Department, Defence Department, Atomic Energy and Disarmament Department, and Arms Control and Disarmament Department), HM Treasury (Defence and Material Department), the Department of Trade and Industry (Atomic Energy, and Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate), the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).
    [Show full text]
  • Application Requête
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS filed in the Registry of the Court on 24 April 2014 OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT (MARSHALL ISLANDS v. UNITED KINGDOM) COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE REQUÊTE INTRODUCTIVE D’INSTANCE enregistrée au Greffe de la Cour le 24 avril 2014 OBLIGATIONS RELATIVES À DES NÉGOCIATIONS CONCERNANT LA CESSATION DE LA COURSE AUX ARMES NUCLÉAIRES ET LE DÉSARMEMENT NUCLÉAIRE (ÎLES MARSHALL c. ROYAUME-UNI) 6 R-ILE_UK_2.indd 1 12/10/15 11:49 2 2014 General List No. 160 I. LETTER FROM THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND CO-AGENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Majuro, 6 April 2014. I have the honour to submit herewith nine Applications to the Court. In six of these Applications the Marshall Islands is requesting the Respondent State to con- sent to the Court’s jurisdiction for the purposes of this particular case. All of the Applications are delivered to you on Thursday, 24 April 2014, by our Co-Agent, Mr. Phon van den Biesen. Attached to this letter are nine letters in which I make it known to the Court that Mr. van den Biesen has been duly appointed as Co-Agent for each of these cases. Each of the nine Applications is submitted to the Court in two original copies. In addition, 30 paper copies of each Application are provided to the Court as well as one USB device containing digital copies of each Application.
    [Show full text]
  • Ebook Download Dark Side of Camelot, the Ebook
    DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT, THE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Seymour M. Hersh | 528 pages | 01 Sep 1998 | Little, Brown & Company | 9780316360678 | English | New York, United States Dark Side of Camelot, the PDF Book Time for the Grab Bag! Hersh asked me a year or two ago if I'd learned anything new; when I told him that a former C. That said, I did not like this book. Does anyone still think John F. A hero. Democracy Now. Hersh has accused the Obama administration of lying about the events surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden and disputed the claim that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians in the Syrian Civil War. Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. No trivia or quizzes yet. Some of Hersh's speeches concerning the Iraq War have described violent incidents involving U. Archived from the original PDF on March 26, Friend Reviews. Retrieved September 27, Retrieved May 16, To widen my studies I also include prominent biographies and many other Kennedy tomes. Nothing in ''The Dark Side of Camelot'' gives off even a whiff of the dead-fish aroma of the trust fund for Marilyn's Mom, but Kennedy loyalists, joined by others who just don't want to know, are using Hersh's terrible misstep to dismiss what he has dug up as trifling gossip and unsupported hearsay.
    [Show full text]