5 ms·
There's no question that nuclear subs are more appropriate for Australia, especially against a sophisticated opponent like China. Hopefully USA and Australia c
by ldargin 5y ago
There's no question that nuclear subs are more appropriate for Australia, especially against a sophisticated opponent like China. Hopefully USA and Australia can compensate France in some way to maintain their prestige.
- turbinerneiter 5y agoFrance can do nuclear subs, Australia explicitly wanted diesel, until they suddenly didn't want diesel anymore. Arms deals are a joke always, they don't make sense, its basically all corruption fraud and lies.
- ekabod 5y agoFrance refuses to sell nuclear submarines.
- turbinerneiter 5y agoDidn't know that, thanks for the correction.
- PoignardAzur 5y agoIt's never that simple. From what I understand, France is willing to sell nuclear submarines, with some caveats related to non-proliferation treaties (though apparently the upcoming US deal might blatantly violate those). This kind of move is about backroom deals and consolidation of soft power; if Australia had asked France for nuclear submarines, they would never have sunk a multi-billion deal over that.
- droopyEyelids 5y agoChina is Australia's largest trade partner, and China owns tons of Australian real estate (residential and industrial), and one out of 20 Australians considers themselves of Chinese ancestry. It doesn't seem to make much sense to conceive of Australia and China as submarine warfare opponents.
- tomohawk 5y agoFrance was Germany's largest trading partner prior to WWI
- Rebelgecko 5y agoThe US was also Japan's top trading partner a decade before Pearl Harbor
- hulahoof 5y agoWe are very protective of our territorial waters, not all submarine usage is warfare.
- ldargin 5y agoConventional subs are quieter than nuclear subs, so are for defending coastal waters not far from port. But nuclear subs project more power, since they can stay underwater for months at a time.
- sudosysgen 5y agoLol, no one is using nuclear subs to defend territorial waters. Their job is to help the US run a blockade against China and it's trading partners, nothing else.
- dnautics 5y agoSpecifically in this case it's to build submarines which can chase after submarines which are trying to break us blockade. If china invades Taiwan, the obvious next step is to blockade Chinese oil imports, which cripples upwards of 60-80% of Chinese domestic food production, but is justifiable on "military grounds" and definitely prevents china from creating supply lines outside of the first island chain. There is no sensible equivalent retaliatory action on the part of china after such a blockade, as the us is currently food and energy self-sufficient.
- 5y ago
- SiempreViernes 5y agoSure, but there was no need to publicly humiliate France by keeping the deal secret until the last minute. The only real reason Australia didn't first cancel the French deal some months in advance of announcing their AUKUS deal is that they simply didn't care what their supposed ally would think about it, and set the timeline by some domestic needs. But honestly I don't think the Biden admin will do much to assuage French concerns about not being respected, this administration doesn't really have any genuine interest in diplomacy, mostly just leaving things in place expecting them to tick over peacefully.
- worrycue 5y agoI hope the Australians are aware of the disposal cost of nuclear submarines - if I’m right the UK has yet to fully dispose of any of their retired nuclear submarines; they are just sitting in harbour. If Australia is alright with that, or the US agreed to do disposal for them, then that’s fine I guess.