Soviet-era nuclear power plant is called the next Chernobyl
The Armenian Nuclear Power Plant was opened in 1976 and comprises two reactors, reportedly supplying the nation with 40 per cent of its electricity.
But it stands in a seismic zone, and has already been shuttered once before, closing sfor six years after the Spitak Earthquake in 1988.
Now it's up and running again, just 22 miles from Armenia's capital, Yerevan, where it's been called a 'Chernobyl in waiting'.
Author Peter Marko Tase, an expert on the Southern Caucasus region, said: 'It is a fact.
'Due to Armenia's lack of economic resources and the reactor's precarious structure, we can ascertain that such a nuclear reactor is an explosive that could go off at any moment.
'It would have similar effects to the Chernobyl meltdown.
'Soil contamination, water quality degradation, and massive air pollution will be looming over the skies of Europe for at least a decade, in the tragic case of a meltdown.'
He continued: 'The plant is located in a region with high seismic activity.
'Its precarious operational activity represents a high risk of nuclear contamination.
'It is Europe's largest radioactive powerhouse in the event of an explosion.'
The plant, near the town of Metsamor, scarcely 10 miles from the Turkish border, opened a year before Chernobyl – its counterpart in Ukraine.
When Chernobyl suffered a catastrophic meltdown in 1986, it sparked the largest release of radioactive material into the environment in human history.
And like Chernobyl, Metsamor was built with Soviet-era technology.
Dr Tase said: 'The plant has only one reactor functional today.
'It has very old technological equipment and the concrete structure of this reactor is in a very precarious condition.
'During the second half of 1980s, the Soviet Union regime decided to shut down this facility but unfortunately this decision was never implemented. It represents an imminent danger for Europe and Southern Caucasus nations.'
Dr Tase isn't the only one to raise the alarm.
There were concerns even before the plant re-opened in 1995, according to an article published that year in The Washington Post.
Speaking to the paper, Viktoria Ter-Nikogossian, then an adviser to the environmental committee of the Armenian parliament, called the reopening 'very, very scary'.
She said: 'This nuclear plant can never be safe to run, and an accident would mean the end of Armenia.'
The article also quoted Morris Rosen of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who said the plant's design was 'clearly deficient'.
He further criticised its construction in a seismic zone.
He said: 'You would never build a plant in that area, that's for sure, with what's known now.'
What's more, the plant is still run with help from Russia's atomic energy agency, Rosatom, making the Kremlin a major player in Armenia's energy supply.
Dr Tase said: 'The plant represents the geopolitical influence of the Russian Federation in the Southern Caucasus region. Russia is expected to modernise one of the two reactors at Metsamor, and that will cost Armenian taxpayers more than $65m (£48m).
'However there are serious doubts as to whether Moscow will fulfil its agreement with the Armenian government signed in December 2023.'
He added: 'This matter is a vivid reminder of how extensive Russian influence is on the economy, energy production, and infrastructure development of Armenia.'
Dr Tase, who's authored hundreds of articles about the region and studied it for 15 years, believes it's time for the US and Europe to step in.
He said: 'The EU and the US must take immediate actions to secure the reactor's physical structure, and work diligently to shut down this ticking nuclear time bomb in a timely manner.
'Metsamor might be the most serious threat to global security and stability, and key players must act now.'
The plant's operators were contacted for comment.
In the past, the plant's supporters have argued that it was built on a stable basalt block as a defence against earthquake damage.
They've also pointed to safety measures made in the years since its reopening.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Why did Trump move his nuclear deterrent? Not for strategic gain
President Trump announced on Friday that he had sent two nuclear submarines 'closer to Russia' in response to threatening rhetoric from the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Whatever Trump's reason for the sabre-rattling deployment, strategic advantage is not one of them. Moving a pair of Ohio-class submarines equipped with nuclear missiles — 'boomers' in US military parlance, or 'bombers' in the UK — nearer to Russia would put them in shallower waters, making them easier to detect. And moving them anywhere quickly, which means making noise and disturbance in the water, would also increase their vulnerability. However, if Trump is referring to nuclear-powered attack submarines, rather than boomers, he can move them wherever he wants; it makes no difference to the nuclear relationship with Russia. America's boomers are far better off staying where they are, deep in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. They move very slowly and very quietly, staying underwater for 70 days or more without surfacing — a deadly game of silent deterrence they have played with Moscow for the past 60 years. They do not need to go any nearer to Russia to maintain that threat. Each Ohio boat carries missiles with a range of more than 7,000 miles, so they could reach Moscow, or anywhere else in Russia, from underneath either of the oceans they patrol. Indeed, they could sit in their Pacific base at Kitsap-Bangor in Washington State, or at King's Bay Georgia on the Atlantic coast, and still launch against any target within Russia. The real deterrent threat of the boomers is not what they can do — that dreadful destructive power has been well understood for many years — but their ability to remain elusive and undetectable while they do it. On any given day, the US would aim to have perhaps four or five of its 12 operational boomers on patrol across the Atlantic and Pacific. Each submarine carries up to 20 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, and each missile can carry up to 12 independently targeted warheads, although some of these would undoubtedly be decoys. Every Ohio boat could deliver to any part of the northern hemisphere a mixture of 240 nuclear warheads and decoys against a range of targets. Every US president knows they have the power on any day to unleash about 1,000 nuclear warheads from just this one component of the total nuclear force. Rushing extra boomers out to sea as a political signal would be hugely disruptive to the careful preparation and maintenance schedules for rotating boats and crews that 'continuous at-sea deterrence' requires. It would be contemplated only in the most dire circumstances and would simply add more overkill to America's already huge capabilities. Russia is outmatched by the destructive power of America's boomers, but nonetheless maintains a more than adequate deterrent in the form of its own nuclear submarine force. Moscow has been phasing out its Soviet-era Delta design in favour of newer Borei-class boomers. At present Russia is thought to keep maybe three of its older Delta boats and seven of its eight Borei submarines available for launching nuclear missiles. Each Borei-class boat can launch 16 Bulava missiles, with up to six independent warheads apiece, each of which has a 6,000-mile range. Unlike the extravagant American undersea presence across two oceans, Russia is believed to keep only one or two bombers on 'continuous at-sea deterrence' duties and relies instead on the ability to put other boats to sea rapidly in a time of crisis, offering a pretty loud signal to western intelligence agencies if they ever did it. Nevertheless, both the US and Russia have more than enough nuclear power prowling slowly through the deepest oceans to threaten each other with ultimate destruction. It's the most stable part of the strategic nuclear balance, part of the 'triad' of nuclear deterrence: heavy missiles launched from silos deep underground; air-launched glide bombs and missiles loaded with nuclear warheads; and submarine-launched ballistic missiles systems like Trident and Bulava. The sites of the underground silos are all known and might feasibly be hit before launching their missiles in a 'bolt from the blue' attack. Aircraft, too, can be detected and attacked before they release their armaments, or even while still on the ground. But the submarine out at sea can remain undetected, providing a guaranteed retaliatory weapon for both sides. Even in a massive, all-out first strike on the homeland, the boomers would still be intact — as would their threat of second-strike nuclear retaliation. The only hope for an aggressor would be simultaneously to cut into the firing chain that authorised a boomer to launch — a huge gamble for any attacker to take. This continuous, silent, shadow war has provided ample material for novelists and analysts alike. Tom Clancy was an obsessive amateur and in 1984 produced his debut novel, The Hunt for Red October, which contained astonishingly accurate technical information about the whole business. The Pentagon was alarmed at his independent powers of deduction. The secretary of the navy wanted to know 'who the hell cleared it?' When the nuclear missiles carried on Russian submarines only had a range of 1,500 miles, there were regular stories of Soviet boomers cruising around Bermuda, about 600 miles from the east coast of the US. That was true enough. But Nato's supreme commander (Atlantic) once remarked that he wished Russia would put more of its boomers so close: 'In the first hour of hostilities, we take them out,' he said. Operating near the enemy coast is always dangerous. In 1986 K-219, a Yankee-class Russian boomer, suffered an onboard explosion northeast of Bermuda. The Russians could not recover it. The CIA also secretly had a go. But the submarine was lost, taking all its nuclear weapons to the bottom with it. That catastrophe was turned into a realistic novel as well. In the world of submarines, the boomers are behemoths. The Ohio class weighs almost 19,000 tons, the Borei 24,000, and its Soviet-era predecessors were even bigger. The simple fact remains that these vessels can only perform their deterrent role properly by keeping very quiet, a long way out to sea and deep beneath it. Michael Clarke is visiting professor in defence studies at King's College London and a former director of the Royal United Services Institute
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Newshour Trump moves nuclear submarines after Russian ex-president's comments
Russian media have dismissed Donald Trump's announcement that he will deploy nuclear submarines closer to Russia. Mr Trump said his decision was prompted by 'provocative comments' on social media by the former Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev. Mr Medvedev said in a post on X on Monday that President Trump was playing "the ultimatum game" with Russia, and that such an approach could lead to a war involving the United States. Also in the programme: The world's first legislation to control artificial intelligence starts coming into force in the EU today; and from Gaza, the sixteen-year-old with a dream to become a great violinist. (Photo: Dmitry Medvedev was Russia's president in 2008-12. Credit: Reuters)
BBC News
6 hours ago
- BBC News
Steve Rosenberg: Russia is staying quiet on Trump's nuclear move
Could this be the first time in history a social media spat triggers nuclear escalation?President Donald Trump, offended by posts by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, says he's ordered two nuclear submarines to move closer to how will Moscow respond? Are we on a path to a nuclear standoff between America and Russia? An internet-age version of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?I doubt it, judging by initial reaction in Russia. Russian news outlets have been rather dismissive of Trump's to the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, a military commentator concluded that Trump was "throwing a temper tantrum".A retired lieutenant-general told Kommersant that the US president's talk of submarines was "meaningless blather. It's how he gets his kicks"."I'm sure Trump didn't really give any orders [about submarines]," a Russian security expert suggested to the same also mentions that in 2017, Trump said that he'd despatched two nuclear submarines to the Korean peninsula as a warning to North not long after, Trump held a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong bizarrely, might Donald Trump's latest submarine deployment be a precursor to a US-Russia summit?I wouldn't go that the reaction from the Russian authorities has been time of writing, there hasn't been any. Not from the Kremlin. Not from the Russian foreign ministry. Nor the defence I've seen no announcement about Russian nuclear submarines being positioned closer to suggests that either Moscow is still studying the situation and working out what to do, or that Moscow doesn't feel the need to Russian press reaction I mentioned earlier suggests it's the latter. Trump had been sparring with Medvedev on social media for several the US president had reduced his 50-day deadline for Russia to end its war in Ukraine to less than two weeks, Medvedev posted that Trump was "playing the ultimatum game with Russia…Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war".Trump responded: "Tell Medvedev, the failed former Russian president who thinks he is still in power, to be careful what he says. He is entering very dangerous territory."Medvedev's next post contained a reference to "Dead Hand", the automatic nuclear retaliation system developed in the Soviet that did not go down well with the White House he was Russia's president, between 2008 and 2012, Medvedev was seen as a relatively liberal figure."Freedom is better than no freedom" he was famously quoted as he has grown increasingly hawkish. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine he has gained a reputation for bombastic, anti-Western social media posts. Most of them have passed unnoticed, since he is not viewed as the voice of the he has been noticed: by the President of the United not just noticed. He's got right under Trump's one thing to dislike a social media post. We've all been to dislike it so much you deploy nuclear submarines feels like why has Trump done it?Here's Trump's own explanation from his interview with Newsmax: "Medvedev said some things that are very bad, talking about nuclear. When you mention the word nuclear my eyes light up and I say we better be careful, because it's the ultimate threat."But Medvedev has long been accused of nuclear sabre-rattling via social media. It's nothing is clear is that Trump took the recent Medvedev posts very personally, and reacted there also be a strategy at play? Unpredictability feels like a big part of Trump's way of doing things, in business and in politics; taking unexpected decisions that can put rivals and opponents off balance before talks or during a ending the war in Ukraine, for submarine deployments may well fall into that category.
