Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting conversation between various foreign policy experts about recent China-Australia tensions over
Australia, with the help of the U.S. the only non-nuclear state acquiring highly enriched uranium-powered submarines which China fears will undermine regional stability
The fuel used to power the submarines could be used to build nuclear weapons — so how it is handled will be key to gauging the allies’ intentions
“However, in practice, Australia wants to push back against perceived Chinese military aggression, and nuclear submarines could be used to deny access to Chinese warships near Australian waters, to conduct reconnaissance and surveillance. I don’t think it’s about stopping China’s nuclear deterrence.
It's long overdue. Australia needs this. Of the Western allied countries after WWII only France and the UK made the smart decision to become nuclear powers. Now they have a seat at the table and China won't dare mess with them.
Now this is only about nuclear submarines and Australia won't become a nuclear power, but it will take Australia's navy to next level, worthy of a first world country.
But why couldn't Australia get it from the UK alone? I think Biden's handlers dangled the "nuclear submarines" carrot in front Morison to get him to go along with their climate change agenda. Also a new US President and Congress could delay or even undo this deal.
It's long overdue. Australia needs this. Of the Western allied countries after WWII only France and the UK made the smart decision to become nuclear powers. Now they have a seat at the table and China won't dare mess with them.
Now this is only about nuclear submarines and Australia won't become a nuclear power, but it will take Australia's navy to next level, worthy of a first world country.
But why couldn't Australia get it from the UK alone? I think Biden's handlers dangled the "nuclear submarines" carrot in front Morison to get him to go along with their climate change agenda. Also a new US President and Congress could delay or even undo this deal.
I am Australian and you don't speak for me. I don't care less about nuclear subs. I am very unhappy how the Australian government handling of it and stabbed the French deal and now the French government is suing the Australian government. No wonder the French government is very unhappy with Australia. If the Australian government didn't deceive the French government for so long, then maybe the nuclear subs would be a good thing.
BTW China walks over Hong Kong which was a British territory for a long time and Britain can't do much to stop it.
It's long overdue. Australia needs this. Of the Western allied countries after WWII only France and the UK made the smart decision to become nuclear powers. Now they have a seat at the table and China won't dare mess with them.
Now this is only about nuclear submarines and Australia won't become a nuclear power, but it will take Australia's navy to next level, worthy of a first world country.
But why couldn't Australia get it from the UK alone? I think Biden's handlers dangled the "nuclear submarines" carrot in front Morison to get him to go along with their climate change agenda. Also a new US President and Congress could delay or even undo this deal.
I am Australian and you don't speak for me. I don't care less about nuclear subs. I am very unhappy how the Australian government handling of it and stabbed the French deal and now the French government is suing the Australian government. No wonder the French government is very unhappy with Australia. If the Australian government didn't deceive the French government for so long, then maybe the nuclear subs would be a good thing.
BTW China walks over Hong Kong which was a British territory for a long time and Britain can't do much to stop it.
They used the terms of the contract to cancel the order. While it wasn't handled particularly diplomatically it was done per the terms of the contract and if the shoe was on the other foot France would have acted in exactly the same way. There's no way they could have told the French beforehand or it would have leaked.
The French threw a hissy fit 25 years ago when they were testing nukes in the Pacific and Australia removed the Mirage fighter from its shortlist of options. They even recalled their ambassador over it. They'll get over this. They don't have a choice: There are no friendships in international relations only interests, and France has a million or so citizens living in French territories across the Indo-Pacific.
They used the terms of the contract to cancel the order. While it wasn't handled particularly diplomatically it was done per the terms of the contract and if the shoe was on the other foot France would have acted in exactly the same way. There's no way they could have told the French beforehand or it would have leaked.
The French threw a hissy fit 25 years ago when they were testing nukes in the Pacific and Australia removed the Mirage fighter from its shortlist of options. They even recalled their ambassador over it. They'll get over this. They don't have a choice: There are no friendships in international relations only interests, and France has a million or so citizens living in French territories across the Indo-Pacific.
It is a messy situation. BTW the US only has interests and using Australia to protect their interests in the region. The UK like France are no longer be world class powers since it's mission in the Suez canal in 1956 failed due to the high opposition from USA and Soviet Union at that time.
Even if Australia went forward with the deal with France, it still would have strong military links with the USA. So the AUSUK pack is not new and it has been around for many years.
BTW the french sups were quieter and move into shadow water without easily being detected. Nuclear subs can't do that and are not as quiet. Yet Nuclear subs are built for endurance and can be under water for long periods of time, but diesel needs to go to the surface to recharge.
There is a downside with nuclear subs such as this example: During one war game in 2015, a Russian-built, Kilo-class diesel-powered submarine used by the Indian navy “sank” a US nuclear-powered sub – although the US navy has never acknowledged the sinking.https://www.theguardian.com/australi...itary-addition
What France has which the UK does not is it has its own independent nuclear missiles and delivery systems unlike that of the UK which has to ask USA for all of these plus UK no more produces the military hardware that it once did from its fighter jets to missiles it's dependent on other European power or the USA.
There is a downside with nuclear subs such as this example: During one war game in 2015, a Russian-built, Kilo-class diesel-powered submarine used by the Indian navy “sank” a US nuclear-powered sub – although the US navy has never acknowledged the sinking.
It's a trade off - diesels are quieter while nuclear have more range and speed. It depends what your strategic goals are in regard to what is better. Obviously with the US extended range of operations, nuclear subs are the correct choice. I am not sure what Australia's strategic goal is. If it's just to monitor the home waters, I would stay with diesel. But nothing is totally quiet - if it moves, it can be tracked. Diesel subs included.
Just to be clear to anyone that reads it - nothing literally sank. It was a training exercise.
If it truly happened, and no one really knows, we don't know the circumstances, it was against an outdated US Los Angeles class sub. They have or are being replaced with a quieter and more modern Virginia class sub (which the Australian's are purchasing). Russian subs - pffft - and Indian Russian subs have a habit of running aground, catching fire, or sinking with all hands aboard. The quietest is Sweden's Gotland Class.
It's a trade off - diesels are quieter while nuclear have more range and speed. It depends what your strategic goals are in regard to what is better. Obviously with the US extended range of operations, nuclear subs are the correct choice. I am not sure what Australia's strategic goal is. If it's just to monitor the home waters, I would stay with diesel. But nothing is totally quiet - if it moves, it can be tracked. Diesel subs included.
Just to be clear to anyone that reads it - nothing literally sank. It was a training exercise.
If it truly happened, and no one really knows, we don't know the circumstances, it was against an outdated US Los Angeles class sub. They have or are being replaced with a quieter and more modern Virginia class sub (which the Australian's are purchasing). Russian subs - pffft - and Indian Russian subs have a habit of running aground, catching fire, or sinking with all hands aboard. The quietest is Sweden's Gotland Class.
Thank you for sharing. Yet the Russian Russia's Project 885M is replacing the current subs. It is superior to previous Russian subs. It has already seen action with attacks in Syria.
I'd probably agree war with China is closer. The nuclear sub deal has put Australia in a position of both greater threat to region in the sense of military balance changes (note Indonesian comments) as well as so entwinned with America, that the slightest provocation the Americans use for aggressive action against China, will see Australia involved.
Surely a more neutral stance in the region would have been to Australia's interests? Besides making Australia an unreliable country to do business with being so reliant on the Americans and their future policies can only repeat past follies of following their foreign policy rather than own interests.
I'd probably agree war with China is closer. The nuclear sub deal has put Australia in a position of both greater threat to region in the sense of military balance changes (note Indonesian comments) as well as so entwinned with America, that the slightest provocation the Americans use for aggressive action against China, will see Australia involved.
Surely a more neutral stance in the region would have been to Australia's interests? Besides making Australia an unreliable country to do business with being so reliant on the Americans and their future policies can only repeat past follies of following their foreign policy rather than own interests.
Yes Australia has a bigger chance with war with China now. But currently Japan has more US military stationed there than any other country and it is about 55 000. Most are in Okinawa in southern Japan and it is much closer to China than Australia. IF there was a war with China and the US then China would much more likely to attack them harder than Australia.
Japan is using the USA as they have always felt not safe with a military strong China. Japan also has really humilated China in the past with the occupation of islands that was of China interests and invading China itself which was very brutal, and of TAiwan too. Taiwan under Japanese rule was not as harsh as other countries under Japanese rule and then Taiwan did develop during Japanese occupation. The Taiwanese have a soft spot with Japan and vice versa.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
