Britain needs nuclear power
By Steve Brady
IN RECENT YEARS opposition to nuclear power has grown within Nationalist circles. But is such an opposition valid, given that the Nationalist movement is also firmly committed to the maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent? One Nationalist who believes that opposition to nuclear power is unsound is Steve Brady. Here he argues that nuclear power will be vital to the defence of Nationalist Britain.
EVER SINCE our party was founded in 1967, the National Front has been unwavering in its support for an independent British nuclear deterrent, and its opposition to unilateral nuclear disarmament as advocated by the likes of CND. In this, as in so many of our policies, we reflect the clear view of most of our fellow countrymen. Like most Britons, we have always perceived that the defence of our nation in the nuclear age requires a nuclear strike force, and one totally under British control. Hence our widely-shared position on the nuclear issue: “No to Cruise, No to CND. Yes to an independent nuclear deterrent!”
More recently, we have seen the growth within the Party, also reflecting a widespread public feeling, of an 'anti-nuclear' position, opposed not to British nuclear weapons but to British nuclear power, nuclear reactors, nuclear waste dumps etc. Those holding this position would have us accept nuclear weapons, but reject nuclear technology and close down nuclear installations such as Sellafield / Windscale, and so on. Unfortunately, such a policy of “Yes to a British bomb, no to British reactors” is incompatible with itself and hence a nonsense. For in order to maintain and effectively deploy a British nuclear deterrent, we need British reactors.
For nuclear reactors and other nuclear processing plants are needed to build nuclear bombs and drive the submarines needed to launch them from. Atomic and hydrogen bombs require (in the latter case as a trigger for hydrogen fusion) a critical mass of fissile material. Two such materials are suitable: uranium 235 and plutonium-239. Both can only be obtained to 'weapons-grade' standard by using advanced nuclear technology, with all that implies. 99.3% of naturally occurring uranium is uranium-238, useless for weapons purposes. To make a bomb, the concentration of the U-235 isotope must be increased from 0.7% to at least 20% (in practice, modern uranium warheads are over 90% U-235). This is achieved in an enrichment plant by turning uranium into hexafluoride gas and centrifuging it, causing the heavier U-238 containing gas molecules to separate out. Alternatively a laser beam will ionise U-235 atoms but not U-238, so the electrically-charged U-235 ions can be pulled out with an electric field. However, plutonium-239 is better than uranium-235 for making bombs: you need less of it (only a few kilograms to make a critical mass, rather than over 20 for U-235) and you don't waste over 90% of the raw materials you make it from. In fact, you make Pu-239 from that U-238 waste: by bombarding it with neutrons in a breeder reactor you turn ordinary uniform uranium 238 into weapons-grade, 93% pure, Pu-239 In the process you can generate electrical power, which you may as well use. Thus a reactor needed to make a bomb gives you a free nuclear power programme whether you like it or not. The main bomb-making reactor in Britain is the 'dreaded' Windscale/ Sellafield plant: ironically the reactor about which most fuss is made is also the very one we could least afford to close down!
We also need atomic reactors to provide and reprocess the fuel needed for the nuclear submarine fleet from which our deterrent must, in the main, be launched. These subs need to be nuclear-driven, because only nuclear-power enables them to stay at sea, submerged, long enough to hide from a potential enemy and thus avoid being knocked out by a pre-emptive strike, as land-based missiles could so easily be. And if you have nuclear submarines, you need somewhere to store the used radioactive fuel rods from their reactors. So just to keep Britain's bomb you need the full panoply of reactors, reprocessing plants and nuclear waste repositories: you might as well put them to civilian power generation use while you are about it!
If we closed down Sellafield and all other nuclear facilities in Britain, as some would have us do, we could not long maintain even our present nuclear deterrent, and we certainly could not deploy it effectively. In fact, however, for the forseeable future an NF Government would be compelled not merely to maintain our nuclear deterrent but to expand it substantially, simply in order to survive.
For, by rejecting the entire political, ideological, social, economic, racial and moral framework of a corrupt and ethnically suicidal world order, we pose a fundamental threat to that old order, in both its interlocking Capitalist and Communist manifestations, which it dare not ignore. As it does not ignore the much lesser challenge posed by White South Africa, even though the regime there has tatally conceded the very issue at stake and accepted the morality of multiracialism, quibbling only about the timetable for its implementation. We would concede them nothing, and as such the pressures exerted now on Pretoria would be trifling compared to those confronting an NF Britain. Without an effective nuclear deterrent, we could not stand alone against them. United Nations resolutions, deploring our 'wicked racism' and passed with touching unaminimity by the 'rival superpowers' in the Security Council and the monkey-house which is the General Assembly, would be followed not only by diplomatic and economic sanctions but by military intervention by both superpowers under a UN flag. Only the threat of an effective British nuclear deterrent could hold them back and save our National Revolution and our White Race.
The existing British deterrent, consisting of sixty-odd American-build Polaris missiles launched from four submarines, only two of which are actually at sea at any one time, may be adequate to provide Maggie's tuppence-halfpennyworth towards Ronnie's Armageddon. It is not enough to stand off the world in arms, as we might have to. Currently, two well-placed depth charges could finish Britain as a nuclear power. As soon as we come to power, we will need to build up a far larger deterrent force as fast as we can. We will need every breeder reactor we have got. Our task will be difficult, but not impossible: we don't need to match the multi-thousand-warhead arsenals of the superpowers. We just need to make the game of crushing the National Revolution, of halting Britain's rebirth, not worth the candle.
In the age of the nuclear winter, it would not take much more nuclear megatonnage for a Nationalist Britain to make the ultimate threat upon which all nuclear deterrence is based ― "Leave me alone or I'll kill us all!" ― and make it stick. After all, if any racial nationalist rebirth ― presumably not just in Britain ― is going to be stopped dead at the start our Race is doomed to extinction anyway and we have nothing to lose. But we, need not, given an effective deterrent, resort to such an ultimate act of desperation.
To keep the wolves from our throat we need not threaten the whole world ― only a few influential parts of it. For example, one of our likely potential enemies might not like a racially-based National Homeland for the British people existing. But they would like their own correspoding State not existing, save as radioactive rubble, a whole lot less! Nor would America pay for the return of its British "aircraft carrier" with a substantial proportion of its cities. Nor would the Soviets pay for Britain with several of their cities ― or, possibly, with anything. Given an adequate nuclear force ― and the atomic reactors that requires ― our society and our people would be safe.
If our Nation, and our National Revolution, is to survive, it must be defended. If it is to be defended effectively, we need a nuclear deterrent. That needs a nuclear industry, which in the process generates civilian electrical power. Certainly we can, and must, seek to make that nuclear industry safer, and deal effectively with legitimate public concern ― as opposed to scientifically illiterate hysteria ― about it. But we cannot, we dare not, close it down. Like it or not, Britain NEEDS nukes. Jumping on a populist anti-nuclear bandwagon now may win us votes in the short term. But in the long term it will cost us the National Revolution, the survival of the British Nation, and the future of the White Race.