Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: newcomb@world.std.com (Donald R Newcomb)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Civilian Nuclear Ships
Message-ID: <1991May9.064305.13404@amd.com>
Date: 8 May 91 03:20:42 GMT
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 18
Approved: military@amd.com


From: newcomb@world.std.com (Donald R Newcomb)


Michael Edelman <MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU> writes:
>Why have their been no successors to the Savannah?

The Japanese say, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down." I
understand that some years back the Military Sealift Command looked
at taking over the Savannah for transport or hydrographic duties. The
problem comes from the nuclear power. Many countries will not allow
nuclear vessels in port. They tend to draw protest groups and unlike
oil fueled ships pose a great risk if sunk or damaged.

I don't think the uranium fuel in this type reactor is highly enriched.

Donald Newcomb
newcomb@world.std.com