4 ms·

Australia 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 cl

Australia 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 ago
Defense contractors need orders. Not that the US or the UK are ordering new nuclear sub fleets at the moment.
- MichaelMoser123 5y ago
  What 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 ago
    That 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 ago
They'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 ago
Which 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.
senectus1 5y ago
just because we're part of the treaties doesn't mean we abdicate any responsibility for playing our part in upholding it.
jeswin 5y ago
It will be quite unfair to expect the US to shoulder a disproportionate burden in collective defence treaties (they already spend 3.7% of GDP on defence, compared to Australia's 2.1% or Germany's 1.6%). Australia spending on these subs will add to the coalition's strength, with Asia heating up rapidly.
- nsonha 5y ago
  If you are the one pushing for it, why not?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jjk166 5y ago
By that same logic, why does Australia, or any other nation allied with the US for that matter, even need its own armed forces? Australia is a sovereign nation, not a client of the United States. It is free to engage in its own foreign policy and should logically want some safeguard in case its relationship with the US should ever sour. Even if the relationship stays strong and the US makes defending Australia its top priority in a war, the US and its vast military might is on the other side of the planet - it would take many weeks to move ships to where they are needed. It is sensible for US allies to maintain forces dedicated to their own defense which are strong enough to hold out for the cavalry to arrive. A fleet of Australian nuclear subs may very well be the difference between America reinforcing a free Australia and America liberating an occupied Australia.
- anakaine 5y ago
  We also should not forget the four years most recently where the sitting US president was claiming NATO/UN/ANZUS/other military defence pacts to be a farse because the US wasn't deriving an immediate and obvious dollar value from them. To the point where he made statements alluding to those other countries finding themselves without military support if they didn't pay the US for protection. He literally tried to apply a mob protection racket via insinuation over international politics and treaties. Any sane nation considering their own self defence and sovereignty would be looking to bolster their own position instead of relying solely on that sort of unreliable and borderline abusive relationship.
- MichaelMoser123 5y ago
  By that logic Australia would also need its own nukes, I mean the potential adversary is nuclear armed China, and nuclear submarines are most often used as launchers for missiles armed with nuclear warheads. The point being is that it is not quite clear where to draw the line.
  - objectivetruth 5y ago
    No, because while it might take the US several weeks to get a fleet to Australia, it only takes us minutes to get nukes to China.

hef19898 5y ago

Defense contractors need orders. Not that the US or the UK are ordering new nuclear sub fleets at the moment.

MichaelMoser123 5y ago
What 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 ago
  That 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 ago

They'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 ago

Which 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.

senectus1 5y ago

just because we're part of the treaties doesn't mean we abdicate any responsibility for playing our part in upholding it.

jeswin 5y ago

It will be quite unfair to expect the US to shoulder a disproportionate burden in collective defence treaties (they already spend 3.7% of GDP on defence, compared to Australia's 2.1% or Germany's 1.6%). Australia spending on these subs will add to the coalition's strength, with Asia heating up rapidly.

nsonha 5y ago
If you are the one pushing for it, why not?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jjk166 5y ago

By that same logic, why does Australia, or any other nation allied with the US for that matter, even need its own armed forces? Australia is a sovereign nation, not a client of the United States. It is free to engage in its own foreign policy and should logically want some safeguard in case its relationship with the US should ever sour. Even if the relationship stays strong and the US makes defending Australia its top priority in a war, the US and its vast military might is on the other side of the planet - it would take many weeks to move ships to where they are needed. It is sensible for US allies to maintain forces dedicated to their own defense which are strong enough to hold out for the cavalry to arrive. A fleet of Australian nuclear subs may very well be the difference between America reinforcing a free Australia and America liberating an occupied Australia.

anakaine 5y ago
We also should not forget the four years most recently where the sitting US president was claiming NATO/UN/ANZUS/other military defence pacts to be a farse because the US wasn't deriving an immediate and obvious dollar value from them. To the point where he made statements alluding to those other countries finding themselves without military support if they didn't pay the US for protection. He literally tried to apply a mob protection racket via insinuation over international politics and treaties. Any sane nation considering their own self defence and sovereignty would be looking to bolster their own position instead of relying solely on that sort of unreliable and borderline abusive relationship.
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
By that logic Australia would also need its own nukes, I mean the potential adversary is nuclear armed China, and nuclear submarines are most often used as launchers for missiles armed with nuclear warheads. The point being is that it is not quite clear where to draw the line.
- objectivetruth 5y ago
  No, because while it might take the US several weeks to get a fleet to Australia, it only takes us minutes to get nukes to China.