[tatersolid]

Current nuclear-powered ships are run by the world’s premier naval powers and protected by their own stealth or a huge array of armed escort ships.

Have these guys factored in the cost of a task force of protective missile frigates, subs, and destroyers at each site?

[_n_b_]

Forget security (which worries me less), the legalities of this are notoriously tricky (especially if the ship might ever leave the waters of one nation), and the economics are even worse.

I wouldn’t touch civil maritime nuclear with a barge pole, and if I did, the clear win is decarbonizing big cargo ships.

[trencedamp]

Agreed, the largest container ships put out some serious pollution, going nuclear (a decades old proven technology for shipping) would be a massive improvement

But the people championing nuclear data centers are not trying to solve climate change

[fuoqi]

Nuclear submarines often operate without any escort. Russian nuclear icebreakers and floating SMRs also do not have heavy military escorts.

[glitchcrab]

> Nuclear submarines often operate without any escort.

Correct. That's where the GPs comment regarding stealth comes into play.

[fc417fc802]

Attempt a hostile takeover and see how long the response takes. It doesn't matter how far away the assets are if they can either make it to your position before you accomplish your goal or else credibly hunt you down after the fact. I don't think "theft of nuclear material from a russian naval icebreaker" is a realistic possibility.

[citrin_ru]

I doubt Russian nuclear ice breakers have naval escort. Until recently they operated within the coverage of on-shore long range SAM systems (but most of these SAM systems were moved elsewhere recently e.g. to protect oil refineries so Northern Sea Route is no longer protected).

[joshuanapoli]

I don’t think that anyone would want to steal an icebreaker, but a datacenter full of valuable equipment and interesting information is a more likely target.

[Fluorescence]

Would a marine raid by ship be lower risk than a smash and grab by panel-van on land?

I imagine land is a lower bar to entry, accessible to a much larger criminal base, but security response times and road surveillance is tough.

I'm too much of a land-lubber to know how easy it is vanish from a coastal crime scene by ship. The sea... nowhere to hide but very big. Can satellites track you these days? If wanting to nab a container or two that's a big ship. Not much you could put in a minisub or sub-surface thing. A James Bond villain could cut the supports and drag the whole thing to the hollowed out mountain of their island lair.

I need Michael Mann to make "Heat but on a boat" to educate me.

[AtlasBarfed]

Proliferation resistant reactors should probably be used.

Like.... LFTR

Basically, the normal operation of the reactor doesn't allow the production of weapons-useful nuclear isotopes.

You'll probably also need a smaller footprint reactor

Like.... LFTR

And you'll want something that can be turned on, shut off, and has natural anti-meltdown abilities in case hurricanes or other disasters threaten the ractor

Like ... LFTR

[preisschild]

Why would a carrier battle group be a prerequisite for this? Capital ships will have escorts anyways, the propulsion system doesn't matter.

[kingleopold]

of course they did not calculate it! it will come later when they want to calculate real costs, they will release it after investor update

[zombot]

Don't be a killjoy, the bloom of harebrained ideas around AI should be celebrated!

[cbg0]

That's a problem for the future, no need to worry investors with these silly questions.

[Iolaum]

Hey if you can externalize that cost, more money left for you and the investors !!!