7 ms·
Honestly I'm surprised that Australia didn't go with nuclear submarines earlier. As an island nation, naval strenth needs to take top priority. It has an incred
by jjk166 5y ago
Honestly I'm surprised that Australia didn't go with nuclear submarines earlier. As an island nation, naval strenth needs to take top priority. It has an incredibly long coastline, much of which is sparsely populated, particularly in the north where any attack would be reasonably expected to come from, with few bases in the area to support fleet operations (to my knowledge there are no naval depots between Perth and Darwin with about 2500 miles of coastline in between). All potential adversaries are a long distance away and Australia has no overseas naval bases at which to refuel. Critically, all the major chokepoints that a potential adversary would need to sail through are very far from Australia, with it's territorial waters being extremely open. It's really a perfect use case for nuclear attack subs.
- marticode 5y agoAustralia is not a nuclear nation and as such, is normally not supposed to be able to buy nuclear devices of any sort. Which is why they initially bought French submarines that are nuclear but asked them to be retrofitted for standard propulsion. What the US and the UK did here is a breach of a worldwide agreement by nuclear powers to not supply non nuclear ones in order to restrict nuclear proliferation. Which is one reason the French are pissed - the US took away their contract by breaking a rules the French had stuck to.
- vijayr02 5y agoI understand France is helping Brazil build a nuclear submarine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvaro_Alberto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvar... Did that get an exception? Seems strange France could get that for Brazil but not Australia.
- marticode 5y agoBrazil has multiple civilian nuclear reactors in operations. Australia has no significant nuclear expertise. France would probably have preferred selling nuclear submarines because it would have saved on retrofitting cost.
- cm2187 5y agoI was under the impression that nuclear proliferation applies to nuclear weapons, not to nuclear power. In fact if you look at the list, most countries using civil nuclear power do not have nukes [1]. I assumed Australia was ideologically opposed to nuclear and I understand the French modified their subs to accomodate the Australians, not to not violate a proliferation treaty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#Overv...
- g5095 5y agodude we (Australia) literally have all the uranium .. we're the ones supplying you
- nix23 5y agoThere are "some" others, but Australia is place 2 (2020): https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...
- nsonha 5y agoJust raw or do we enrich it? That might be the key
- anakaine 5y agoWe had an enrichment program from 65 to 84, but only on a small scale. At a similar time we were also only a week or two away from having nuclear warheads. As a nation the pivot to having nuclear weapons is quite straight forward. The technology and resources are available, and the infrastructure has been researched and applied at smaller scales in the past. We're also quite invested in hypersonic projectiles, so it wouldn't take a whole lot to arm a formidable arsenal, the highest cost being political capital.
- Bayart 5y agoThe implications as far as non-proliferation go are potentially quite grave [1]. It might be seen as the US opening the floodgate on the export of weapon-grade uranium outside of international oversight. [1]: https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-nuclear-submarine-announcement-a-terrible-decision-for-the-nonproliferation-regime/ https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- roca 5y agoWhat does a "nuclear nation" mean here? Note that Australia has a small (20MW) nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. 32 countries have commercial power reactors, including the likes of Slovenia and Armenia. Are they "nuclear nations" or not?
- cturner 5y ago"breach of a worldwide agreement" I don't see anything in NPT that forbids the US and UK from supplying nuclear propulsion to Australia. They are not supplying nuclear warheads. The reason the French are pissed are strictly commercial. But that is on Naval Group. As soon as the deal was struck between Australia and Naval Group, Naval Group were changing the terms, and were years behind on some of the earliest deliveries. Had the project been going well, Australia would not have spent political capital seeking this new deal.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoIt may be convenient to blame the French (isn't it always?) and indeed the deal was not going smoothly, but these are hugely political decisions and I think a key to what has happened is American pressure on Australia. The French are not only 'pissed off' for commercial reasons. The deal was part of a long term strategy of France in the region, with India and Australia being the two main partners, so this has serious consequences for them beyond a simple arms sale. Now, on the other hand, two good questions are whether the Australian ever discussed the possibility of France supplying nuclear-powered submarines instead of conventional ones, and whether France would have accepted. I don't know the answer to either though I'm doubtful about the latter and that may be an objective and very good reason for Australia to switch.
- willyt 5y agoFrench nuclear deterrent is entirely developed in house, whearas the UK one is US power plant, warheads and missiles with British naval architecture. Maybe the French didn’t give them nuclear tech for security reasons, same way no-one else is allowed to buy America’s top end stuff.
- jjk166 5y agoThe French did offer to sell Australia nuclear subs in 2016, but Australia chose not to go with that option.
- josephagoss 5y ago
- caf 5y agoThe NPT restrictions the proliferation of nuclear explosives, not reactors - not even naval propulsion reactors.
- marticode 5y agoThis isn't part of the NPT - this is a tacit agreement that nuclear nations don't sell nuclear (or nuclear powered) weapons to non nuclear nations. This is why North Korea never managed to buy nuclear stuff from its Chinese ally. So far.
- TakuYam 5y agoA submarine is not a nuclear powered weapon, or even a weapon unless they’re going to be using them to ram adversaries
- caf 5y agoThere has never been such an agreement. What there has been is the NPT's Article I prohibition on the provision of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices to non-weapons-states (which are all but the 5 weapons states, USA, Russia, France, UK, China). It also prohibits assistance / inducement in developing weapons. The "(or nuclear powered)" bit has never been a thing. There is also the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is a group of nuclear-technology-exporting countries that agree not to export to NPT non-weapons-states a much longer list of dual-use nuclear technologies, unless IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreements are in place. Australia is a member of the NSG, and has safeguards agreements with the IAEA. The IAEA has been informed by all three states of this new proposal.: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-on-trilateral-effort-of-australia-united-kingdom-and-united-states-on-nuclear-naval-propulsion https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-on-trilat...
- mgarfias 5y ago“Nuclear attack sub” refers to a fast attack submarine with nuclear power, not a “boomer” that carries sub launched ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. “Fast attack” subs hunt other subs, convoys, ships, etc. they are not strategic weapons.
- accountofme 5y agoWe already have nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in New South Wales. It is used for science rather than power generation. So on that note, we have nuclear technology already. Your point on proliferation does not hold.
- megablast 5y ago> particularly in the north where any attack would be reasonably expected to come from, What will they attack in the north?? Empty land?? Desert?? Beaches. It would be completely pointless attacking the North. What, land in the north, then send their troops and tanks 3,000 km across a desert??
- philip142au 5y agoCorrect. The Alligators, spiders, snakes and harsh environment with no good roads and a huge distance between there and any people doesn't make it an attractive place to land and then get bombed on by planes.
- marcus_holmes 5y agoI can just imagine a few thousand Chinese troops rocking up to Geraldton after slogging all the way through the desert from somewhere near Broome. The disappointment would be palpable.
- nsonha 5y agoThe Long Disappointing March
- mbrodersen 5y agoHahaha your comment made me laugh out loud. Perfect :)
- roca 5y agoIt's called a beachhead. Take Darwin, then you have a safe platform to threaten the rest. However, I doubt anyone expects an invasion of the Australian mainland. Attacks on shipping are a more likely threat. Maybe naval support to Australian allies that are closer to China.
- jjk166 5y agoI think you misunderstand, it's where the attack comes from, not goes to. Unless Australia goes to war with Antarctica, every possible attack on Australia would be sailing approximately south towards it from a more northerly position. If you want to stop Chinese ships from sailing into Sydney, you must engage them north of Sydney, ideally a lot further north.
- MichaelMoser123 5y agoAustralia is party to the ANZUS treaty, so any attack on Australia would count as an attack on the US, same as with NATO. If you ask me, then it is not quite clear why Australia needs its own nuclear fleet, all of a sudden.
- hef19898 5y agoDefense contractors need orders. Not that the US or the UK are ordering new nuclear sub fleets at the moment.
- MichaelMoser123 5y agoWhat do you make of the last section of the original article? Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, backed the new deal and said his initial response was "surprise". "The irony is that when we chose the French-designed submarine a few years ago we actually took a nuclear-powered submarine and have been spending millions of dollars turning it into a diesel submarine."
- hef19898 5y agoThat there were a lot of really good fel-cell powered, heck even really good diesel-electric, subs on the market. And that the how's and when's behind the decision to buy a nuclear sub, just to transform it into a diesel-electric one, would be really interesting to know...
- EdwardDiego 5y agoThey're looking to counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea in particular, as China has been acting aggressively diplomatically and economically towards Australia under Xi. The advantage of nuclear subs over diesels is the long linger time while submersed, and the range. So I think Australia is wanting to do a little force projection of their own.
- radu_floricica 5y agoWhich means sooner or later US is gonna say something like "hey, wouldn't it be nice if you also spent some cash on this mutual defense thing?". I guess it happened. Might also have something to do with Biden publicly demonstrating that he's going to stop the fight, consequences be damned.
- hef19898 5y agoWell, since modern non-nuclear sub's are more silent than nuclear ones those would be a better choice, IMHO. And cheaper.
- mellavora 5y agoI thought New Zealand had declared itself a nuclear-free zone, which would mean Australian nuclear subs could not visit New Zealand ports nor pass through New Zealand waters. This would be one reason why Australia might not want nuclear subs.
- EdwardDiego 5y agoYep, the status quo holds. That said, Australia's defensive posture has always been oriented north towards Asia, not much reason for them to traverse NZ waters.
- roca 5y agoAustralian nuclear subs will not be allowed into NZ waters, Jacinda Ardern was quite clear on that. However, there is no reason why they would want to enter NZ waters.
- objectivetruth 5y agoI agree there's not much reason now for Aussie boats to be in NZ waters, but there's not really much Jacinda Ardern can do about it with RNZN's whopping two frigates and a handful of helicopters.
- sotruesotrue 5y agoSome day these submarines may well enter NZ waters to protect and defend NZ. Its a small world, NZ can shut their eyes and hope all the bad things will just go away, but they wont.
- roca 5y agoIn the event of an invasion or blockade the nuclear-free policy would be relaxed as needed. It is incredibly difficult to imagine a scenario where, say, China launches a naval invasion or blockade of NZ but is not already at war with our allies. In the latter case subs would engage their navy long before they reach NZ waters.
- littlestymaar 5y ago> in the north where any attack would be reasonably expected to come from, There is no reasonable expectation of an attack on Australia. This is not about defense of Australian coasts, it's about strength projection towards South China See, Taiwan Straight and Pacific Ocean.
- caf 5y agoIt's the same reasons Australia has always had submarines - defence of shipping because an island nation relies on shipped goods, and an ISR platform.
- littlestymaar 5y agoBut you don't need the autonomy of a nuclear submarine to do that. You need them to reach the coasts of China. (And the official announcement speech isn't even hiding it)
- caf 5y agoIt depends on how far away the shipping is being interdicted. And ISR platforms are potentially more useful further away, too.