4 ms·
My observation: 1- US probably predicts that China is gonna breakthrough the first island chain in the next 10 years. 2- France needs to reconsider her Indo-P
by markus_zhang 5y ago
My observation:
1- US probably predicts that China is gonna breakthrough the first island chain in the next 10 years.
2- France needs to reconsider her Indo-Pacific stratrgy because Aussi explicitly shows that it's going all in with US instead of trying to follow some sort of independent strategy.
3- Win for whoever in EU who supports self defense and a more consolidated Europe.
4- First time a non nuclear country (Aussi has very limited exp with nuclear power) manages to obtain nuclear subs from nuclear countries.
- redis_mlc 5y ago1) Taiwan is part of the first island chain, so that's next to get pac-manned. 2) it's almost certain that Japan is assembling a-bombs (they already have ICBMs) 3) EU is not winning - they just refuse to invest in self-defense 4) Australia cannot defend itself, so it's good they're making an effort as long as the result is credible.
- systemvoltage 5y agoPoint #4. Distinction we need to make is that Australia will obtain Nuclear-powered subs, not nuclear weapons. I haven’t seen what “Nuclear Sub” entails with regards to this contract anywhere so please correct me if I am wrong. It’s not breaking the non-proliferation treaty.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt entails in the case of US subs 95% enrichment uranium.
- systemvoltage 5y agoIs making rad bombs trivial? Can you just dump nuclear fuel out of the sub and stick it in a gun-type bomb with no prior experience?
- sudosysgen 5y agoPretty much, yes. Enrichment is the hard part and US subs have fuel enriched enough for a gun type nuke.
- systemvoltage 5y agoI wonder if the subs have enough quantity of fuel to make a respectable explosion. Like if they need to ditch 8 subs to make a bomb, it is pretty low risk if I were China.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIf you run the number, you'll find that a sub is going to have at least a half a ton of highly enriched uranium, perhaps even more than a ton. You wouldn't even need to ditch a single sub to make multiple warheads, certainly not if you use an implosion design as any country can pretty easily do nowadays.
- kayodelycaon 5y agoFrom what I understand, your basic nuclear weapon (WWII tech) isn’t technically difficult to build because the principles are well known. The uranium is the difficult part. Sure you could extract the fuel rods, but how many weapons will you get out of it? Is having a handful of low yield bombs worth the international sanctions? I think you’re better off having strategic strike capability with cruise missiles from submarines. They are a lot more flexible and you can have a lot of them without the other nations getting too upset.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThese submarines have 95% enrichment fuel. You only need ~10kg to make a high yield weapon with the right design. You're going to get multiple weapons with the fuel stored in a single submarine. Cruise missiles are vulnerable. They can be intercepted and shot down, and they give your position away. Low reward, high risk. Nuclear deterrence can certainly be worth it.
- markus_zhang 5y agoYes it's nuclear powered but the argument stands.
- systemvoltage 5y ago> The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) forbids signatories who don’t already have a bomb from making one. It also says they must put sensitive nuclear material, like enriched uranium, under international safeguards, monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a watchdog. But the rules have a submarine-shaped loophole. States are allowed to remove nuclear material from safeguards if they are for “a non-proscribed military activity”, such as submarine propulsion. No non-nuclear-armed state has ever tested that loophole—until now. Source: https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does-the-australian-submarine-deal-mean-for-non-proliferation https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does... So it seems that it is technically not violating NPT.
- dirtyid 5y ago>1- US probably predicts that China is gonna breakthrough the first island chain in the next 10 years. I think the nuke boats / unicorn tech transfer is sweetner for AU hosting more US assets. Starting ASAP. Just announced more US bombers will be stationed down under. With bombers come ABM, and with ABM, might as well as throw in IRBMs. IMO, it's foot in door for improve US positioning in AU, who has already sunk cost too much into US orbit that the only thing left is to double down. PineGap, Geraldton, Exmouth communication hubs, US is absurdly dependent on AU facilities for Indo-Pac operations. Aforementioned facilities will be targeted by PRC if US containment efforts become kinetic. Ditto with IRBMs, every other country in region has rejected to host because sigifnicant US assets paints target for PRC, but AU is on the hitlist due to existing assets by default. E: To complete thought, these subs are distraction until they leave the drydock. Chance of smooth aquisition process is 0. At least 8, i.e. only 2-3 deployable at a time. Realistically won't be ready by 2050s if ever since AU has no indigenous nuke industry and struggled with the Collins sub construction. PRC shipyards is primed to launch 2 SSNs per year once design finalized. 6:1 disparity in hulls + host of unmanned systems. A few nuke subs won't shift strategic landscape that much in 30-40 years, but immediate US basing will.
- fspeech 5y agoBut Australia is 5000 miles away from China, only slightly less than Hawaii. Sure Australia is lower cost with vast land but don't see how that is immediate game changer.
- dirtyid 5y agoBases in West Australia where US assets will be deployed are 1/2 distance from to maritime choke points vs Hawaii. Opens up more options.
- fspeech 5y agoWill they try to choke Australia exports to China? Joke aside still don't see a lot of value add over Singapore in terms of blockade. Unless we are talking about posturing?
- cedricgle 5y agoI don't understand why France sticks with the USA/UK at this point as they treated as bull-crap. I am sure they could strike a good deal with the Chinese and be better off: like leasing land in the Caribbean Sea or making a joint venture in some weapon. France don't really care about the China Sea in the end. They should be as "pragmatical" as the Aussie !.
- markus_zhang 5y agoUS is able to output harm while China doesn't have that ability.
- cedricgle 5y agoSeeing how the Afghanistan war ended I don't think so. The last time the USA properly won a war was when they nuked cities and civilians, whereas China and Russia never went this far. Now given that USA is definitely the more belligerent of the 3, it might happen again.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoUntrue, USA won the Gulf War.
- sam_lowry_ 5y agoDavid against Goliath? IRL, Goliath wins.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoCould you rephrase your question? The parent was suggesting basically that the US is not a Goliath (in expeditionary war).
- sam_lowry_ 5y agoThis was not a question but statement. IRL = In Real Life.
- rastafang 5y ago> My observation I don't think that any of those are observations.. probably more like speculations.