All of which can be done with a conventionally powered ice breaker. Nuclear power adds to the costs, limits where it can be built to one shipyard, the Coast Guard has no nuclear-trained personnel, and adds to the eventual disposal costs. Conventional is a much more cost-effective solution.
“Nuclear-powered icebreakers are much more powerful than their diesel-powered counterparts, and although nuclear propulsion is expensive to install and maintain, very heavy fuel demands and limitations on range, compounded with the difficulty of refueling in the Arctic region, can make diesel vessels less practical and economical overall for these ice-breaking duties.”
Previously I said one nuclear powered ship, and I should include oriented to missions beyond the abilities of diesel powered ships.
Finally, consideration should be given to making the ships from public-private partnerships. This would mean having construction, repairs and maintenance as well as reactor operations being performed by civilian employees side by side with Coast Guard personnel.