7 ms·

Australia 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

Australia 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Brazil 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 ago
I 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 ago
dude we (Australia) literally have all the uranium .. we're the ones supplying you
- nix23 5y ago
  There 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 ago
  Just raw or do we enrich it? That might be the key
  - anakaine 5y ago
    We 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 ago
      The 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 ago
What 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?
- NL807 5y ago
  I think the main differentiator here is operating big enough reactors that could be used to enrich practical quantities of nuclear material.
  - nsonha 5y ago
    May be it's not about reactor because anyone can operate one, more about the capability of processing nuclear materials like you said
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 ago
  It 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 ago
    French 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 ago
      The French did offer to sell Australia nuclear subs in 2016, but Australia chose not to go with that option.
    - josephagoss 5y ago
caf 5y ago
The NPT restrictions the proliferation of nuclear explosives, not reactors - not even naval propulsion reactors.
- marticode 5y ago
  This 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 ago
    A submarine is not a nuclear powered weapon, or even a weapon unless they’re going to be using them to ram adversaries
  - caf 5y ago
    There 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 ago
We 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.

vijayr02 5y ago

I 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 ago
Brazil 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 ago

I 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 ago

dude we (Australia) literally have all the uranium .. we're the ones supplying you

nix23 5y ago
There 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 ago
Just raw or do we enrich it? That might be the key
- anakaine 5y ago
  We 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 ago
    The 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 ago

What 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?

NL807 5y ago
I think the main differentiator here is operating big enough reactors that could be used to enrich practical quantities of nuclear material.
- nsonha 5y ago
  May be it's not about reactor because anyone can operate one, more about the capability of processing nuclear materials like you said

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 ago
It 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 ago
  French 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 ago
    The French did offer to sell Australia nuclear subs in 2016, but Australia chose not to go with that option.
  - josephagoss 5y ago

caf 5y ago

The NPT restrictions the proliferation of nuclear explosives, not reactors - not even naval propulsion reactors.

marticode 5y ago
This 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 ago
  A submarine is not a nuclear powered weapon, or even a weapon unless they’re going to be using them to ram adversaries
- caf 5y ago
  There 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 ago

We 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.