Very interesting essay on nuclear in American Affairs last month.

"Nuclear energy is not just one option among many within a diversified clean energy portfolio; it is strategic sovereign infrastructure, analogous to missile defense, civil aviation control, or central banking. It is a system whose development cannot be delegated, whose coordination cannot be crowdsourced, and whose permanence transcends commercial return."

Lots I agree with in here. The framing in terms of a coordination problem for state and market actors seems right. But my main criticism of this essay is the total absence of two core political problems with the proposal.

First, it sees the U.S. President as key authority to coordinate this strategic sovereign infra in motion. And specifically the author highlights the current administration as already kicking off some, but not all, of the coordinating signal here.

But how can anyone argue that Trump, particularly in this second term, can competently lead and staff such a civilizational endeavor, given his erratic and psychotic behavior, blatant corruption (crypto deals, gifts from foreign states, etc), nepotism (failsons all around, more so than Biden pathetically helped along), and an army of clownish yes men. This is the leadership to coordinate the sovereign strategic infrastructure?

Second, there's no confrontation with the immense monetary cost of all this. Of course it will lead to cheaper projects over time. But how do you sell the public on bankrolling it? How do you create the political will for the public expenditure? Especially if any climate justification is thrown out, as it is with virtually the entire GOP -- and especially the White House.

Moreover, one point I bristled at was the determination of nuclear as "strategic sovereign infrastructure" in part because of defense alignment: "These [Naval submarine] reactors not only supported forward military operations but drove technology transfers to the civilian sector. Nuclear energy should not be seen as adjacent to defense but as an integral part of the defense industrial base, with immense dual-use potential."

I disagree that nuclear energy implies weapons and war. Note that the same argument could be applied to battery storage technology, which is similarly going to be critical for forward operating bases and which even recently proved itself essential in Ukrainian drone counterattacks deep within Russian territory.

In any case it's a thought-provoking read that has the right diagnosis of the problems facing nuclear energy in the U.S. today and should be read more widely. (I have no idea who the pseudonymous author is.)

americanaffairsjournal.…