AHC - A UK Messmer Plan

[Masked Grizzly]

So the best ATL approach would have been for the UK nuclear power program to be on a much smaller scale compared to OTL for military and R&D usage until around the late-1960s to early/mid-1970s, whereupon the UK pushes forward with a large scale civilian nuclear program via its own version of the Messmer Plan following down a similar path to the OTL French to the point of using Westinghouse PWR reactor designs?

 

[Ian Henderson]

So the best ATL approach would have been for the UK nuclear power program to be on a much smaller scale compared to OTL for military and R&D usage until around the late-1960s to early/mid-1970s, whereupon the UK pushes forward with a large scale civilian nuclear program via its own version of the Messmer Plan following down a similar path to the OTL French to the point of using Westinghouse PWR reactor designs?

Given such a POD, would a joint Anglo-French nuclear program be possible? And if it were, would such a joint program help or hinder the prospects for nuclear power?

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Given such a POD, would a joint Anglo-French nuclear program be possible? And if it were, would such a joint program help or hinder the prospects for nuclear power?

While it is tempting within the context of the UK joining the EEC in OTL, would ideally like the UK Messmer Plan to be a home-grown affair rather than a collaboration.

 

[Zen9]

Given such a POD, would a joint Anglo-French nuclear program be possible? And if it were, would such a joint program help or hinder the prospects for nuclear power?

The problem was that Heath asked Aldermaston if we could disentangle UK nuclear science from the US effort. But the answer was that since piling everything together during WWII, it was impossible to so seperate things.

People on the CND front use this to say there is no such thing as a British Bomb. But they ignore the equal assertion that there no such thing as an American Bomb.

SInce the military side cannot be disentangled, it would be less attractive to the French for a purely civil pooling of knowledge.

 

[fasquardon]

So the best ATL approach would have been for the UK nuclear power program to be on a much smaller scale compared to OTL for military and R&D usage until around the late-1960s to early/mid-1970s, whereupon the UK pushes forward with a large scale civilian nuclear program via its own version of the Messmer Plan following down a similar path to the OTL French to the point of using Westinghouse PWR reactor designs?

They don't need to use Westinghouse's designs.

MAGNOX designed with 20 years more experience with military reactors and watching the US play around with civilian reactors would be a much better design than the eternal prototype of OTL. Equally, the UK could work with France, with Canada, with the US, import designs from abroad...

The important part is pushing nuclear when the technology is more mature, not going all in on a poorly understood prototype that understandably ballooned in costs and had certain safety flaws.

fasquardon

 

[Simon]

Another thing to consider is the waste issue, if you can point to a thought through plan for taking care of it then you counteract one of the main arguments against nuclear power and make it easier for the government to build more power stations. Deep geological depositories, like Onkalo one that the Finns are in the process of building, seem like the best solution. Putting money into fast breeder reactors would be another smart move. IIRC due to the way they operate it allows you to use regular nuclear waste to generate energy whilst leaving waste that needs to be stored for only a couple of hundred years rather than potentially thousands.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

They don't need to use Westinghouse's designs.

MAGNOX designed with 20 years more experience with military reactors and watching the US play around with civilian reactors would be a much better design than the eternal prototype of OTL. Equally, the UK could work with France, with Canada, with the US, import designs from abroad...

The important part is pushing nuclear when the technology is more mature, not going all in on a poorly understood prototype that understandably ballooned in costs and had certain safety flaws.

fasquardon

So basically the above ATL scenario in the previous post minus the Westinghouse designs?

Another thing to consider is the waste issue, if you can point to a thought through plan for taking care of it then you counteract one of the main arguments against nuclear power and make it easier for the government to build more power stations. Deep geological depositories, like Onkalo one that the Finns are in the process of building, seem like the best solution. Putting money into fast breeder reactors would be another smart move. IIRC due to the way they operate it allows you to use regular nuclear waste to generate energy whilst leaving waste that needs to be stored for only a couple of hundred years rather than potentially thousands.

Within the context of the above ATL scenario in my previous post how early could the UK look at building deep geological depositories (basically likely a much earlier version of the proposed site near Lake District National Park) and put money into fast breeder reactors?

 

[fasquardon]

So basically the above ATL scenario in the previous post minus the Westinghouse designs?

I was more saying that the Westinghouse designs are not necessary. They wouldn't hurt either. They aren't perfect, but they'd do. Which will be true of any design Britain adopted, unless the UK went straight from military reactors to fancy-pants next generation technology.

fasquardon

 

[Barry Bull]

Another idea which would have probably helped in both scenarios would be Churchill beating Attlee (for potentially more Marshal Plan aid) as well as the UK accepting (instead of rejecting) LBJ's* offer during the mid-1960s to get involved in Vietnam in return for the US potentially cancelling the debt from the Anglo-American loan (that was not repaid until 2006 in OTL).

Perhaps in the case of the former, it would have allowed for the UK to adopt Westinghouse PWR designs with an overall more-solvent UK embarking on an earlier analogue of the Messmer Plan?

*(From an old thread by michael1) - LBJ offered to pay substantially more (certainly at least hundreds of millions of dollars and possibly billions more) than the cost of any British military force and Britain still said no even though this was at a time when Britain was desperate for dollars. The offer was in the form of additional assistance for the £ rather than directly to pay for British troops, but it still potentially involved large sums being transferred to the UK which could then be used as the UK saw fit. It never even got as far as discussing real numbers because the British just said no.

Given the domestic political scene, it is difficult to imagine any government would accept such US request.

 

[Barry Bull]

The problem was that Heath asked Aldermaston if we could disentangle UK nuclear science from the US effort. But the answer was that since piling everything together during WWII, it was impossible to so seperate things.

People on the CND front use this to say there is no such thing as a British Bomb. But they ignore the equal assertion that there no such thing as an American Bomb.

SInce the military side cannot be disentangled, it would be less attractive to the French for a purely civil pooling of knowledge.

While British involvement is material, an US alone programme probably would still achieve the bomb with at most 1 year delay, but an UK/ Commonwealth alone programme would lead to more delay as the infrastructure need to develop the bomb is scatter around the world. Manhattan project can afford to try out several different efforts to obtain uranium which cost an enormous amount of electricity and money which would difficult for the Brits to come up with.

 

[Simon]

Given the domestic political scene, it is difficult to imagine any government would accept such US request.

Depends. The 1964 general election was ridiculously close - swap only 238 votes across just 5 constituencies and you'd get a hung parliament, if 8,655 people changed their vote across 20 constituencies the Conservatives would be returned with a majority of 17. That should be more than enough to see them through until 1969. Alec Douglas-Home whilst fairly nuanced was no friend of communism, he'd be more open to the idea of a deal although not guaranteed to take it. I could certainly see them introducing some form of trades union/strike legislation considering our timeline's Industrial Relations Act 1971, for all that the 1970s has the reputation strikes were on the rise by the latter half of the 1960s. It would be repealed sharpish come 1969 but introduction of something along the lines of In Place of Strife could only help whilst in place.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

I was more saying that the Westinghouse designs are not necessary. They wouldn't hurt either. They aren't perfect, but they'd do. Which will be true of any design Britain adopted, unless the UK went straight from military reactors to fancy-pants next generation technology.

fasquardon

Understand

Depends. The 1964 general election was ridiculously close - swap only 238 votes across just 5 constituencies and you'd get a hung parliament, if 8,655 people changed their vote across 20 constituencies the Conservatives would be returned with a majority of 17. That should be more than enough to see them through until 1969. Alec Douglas-Home whilst fairly nuanced was no friend of communism, he'd be more open to the idea of a deal although not guaranteed to take it. I could certainly see them introducing some form of trades union/strike legislation considering our timeline's Industrial Relations Act 1971, for all that the 1970s has the reputation strikes were on the rise by the latter half of the 1960s. It would be repealed sharpish come 1969 but introduction of something along the lines of In Place of Strife could only help whilst in place.

What if Hugh Gaitskell managed to both live long enough to become PM in 1964 and live out his term in office, along with earlier on managing to amend/remove Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution (given nationalisation was viewed as political liability for Labour in light of the public opposition to the idea)?

Additionally the following link (from International Socialism no less) suggest Gaitskell would have certainly dispatched a token force to fight alongside the Americans regardless of the Labour left. It also suggests that Wilson would have done the same as well as had he managed to win a large enough majority in OTL during the 1966 elections. - http://isj.org.uk/when-old-labour-went-to-war/

 

[midnight77]

Just phrase the idea as a method of avoiding a repeat of ww2 where imports to the uk were so disrupted

 

[Simon]

Additionally the following link (from International Socialism no less)...

Not sure how objective they might or might not be, internal left-wing fights can be more vicious than any against their centre of right-wing opponents after all. I'll pass the link along to some folks who are much more up to speed on Labour's history and see what they think.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Not sure how objective they might or might not be, internal left-wing fights can be more vicious than any against their centre of right-wing opponents after all.

Might be the case though UK Messmer plan or not, find the idea of Labour and the Conservatives splitting up into 3-4 new parties to be quite appealing whatever the catalysts for both end up being in ATL.

It would also be amusing having Gaitskell or Wilson retroactively credited for repaying the Anglo-American loan much earlier compared to OTL (as well as helping to further lay the groundwork for a UK Messmer analogue and amending/removing Clause IV), whilst omitting UK involvement in Vietnam.