5 ms·

These articles are so plain, they don't explain context. I'm not a foreign policy expert or historian but isn't there a rather recent change in foreign relatio

These articles are so plain, they don't explain context. I'm not a foreign policy expert or historian but isn't there a rather recent change in foreign relations of Australia, meaning their strategic needs have changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93China_relations#Since_2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93China_relati... Or maybe it's just posturing.

thinkingemote 5y ago
No idea. The leader of the opposition in Australia said, paraphrasing "the us couldn't win a fight with a bunch of villagers with ak47 for 10 years, so it's a bad deal" Australia is weird.
- bettem 5y ago
  It’s a terrible deal as Australia initially had France redesign a nuclear powered submarine to be Diesel Electric. There was also massive negotiations and posturing from both governments about building the submarines locally. Fast forward a few years and the Australian Government had announced one of the driving factors of this deal is nuclear power rather than diesel electric. We’re also building [reportedly] even less of the Submarine locally now. Not to mention the delivery delays this will cause & our lack of servicing capability. Even as an Australian I can see how this would really annoy France.
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    The actions of the US government the past few decades have flat out confused me at times, so I don't really try to understand them any longer. But the more and more I know about the details of this particular deal, the less I understand what exactly Australia is doing here? I wish there was a reliable place you could go for objective analysis in cases like this, but I'll have to settle for simple confusion for now I guess.
    - bettem 5y ago
      This is just my speculation, but I wouldn’t put it past the Australian Prime Minister making a “Captains Call” here. He’s notoriously stubborn and doesn’t listen to experts in all circumstances he should.
  - thinkingemote 5y ago
    I think the point was that, apparently, the official position of the Australian opposition (who should be more critical of the government) was that the US couldn't fight themselves out of a paper bag, rather than France was better and honour should be important. Perhaps there's no such thing as honour anymore? But this is just my very limited European view of the news, and news is something that I restrict myself on.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > Perhaps there's no such thing as honour anymore? Among governments though? That's rich. They treat their own citizens worse than this. They're happy to move industry and jobs offshore, change policies and legislation at a moments notice.
  - contravariant 5y ago
    Is it too early at this point to wonder if there isn't some kind of underhanded deal going on?
    - mmerlin 5y ago
      No it's not too early. We know the French deal was absolutely crappy to begin. Follow the money. Christopher Pyne brokered this $50Bn deal to get re-elected (some boatbuilding would happen in SA) which blew out to $90Bn and rising. Pyne immediately retired (got his pollie-perks-for-life golden ticket stamped) and then immediately became "employed" as a consult with the people profiting massively from this twisted deal against the public interest. Pyne followed the same slimy playbook as Andrew Robb (4) who sneakily slipped the 99-year Darwin Port dodgy deal across the line, and then he got a free $880k "job" with them the day he left parliament shortly thereafter. Borderline treasonous behavior is rife with our political elite (both sides stink badly) https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/would-you-employ-chris-pyne-for-24-5bn/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/would-you-employ-ch... https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/pyne-poisons-ey/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/pyne-poisons-ey/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/01/audit-office-torpedos-80-billion-submarine-pork/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/01/audit-office-torped... (4) https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/06/chinese-sell-andrew-robb-banks-millions/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/06/chinese-sell-andrew...
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Sounds like a good thing the government is scrapping the deal. Hopefully next they can redistribute the Darwin Port to those whose needs are greater.
  - drevil-v2 5y ago
    You are conflating actions of different governments over decades into one singular action. The world has changed a lot and if the government of the day feels it needs to alter a $90 billion purchase (which was initially $40 billion by the way before cost overruns) to better protect their citizens then it is their right as elected officials. Also don't focus on the PR sideshow of the submarines, this is about the alliance itself.
    - bettem 5y ago
      It’s the same government that did the original deal.
      - drevil-v2 5y ago
        It was Turnbull government that did the deal with France; since then the Liberal party has had a change of leadership and there has been a national election.
  - hash872 5y ago
    France was reportedly stumbling on their end of actually delivering the modified Barracudas though. Here, this is an excellent, very very detailed blog post on the whole topic https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/09/17/a-pounding-in-the-pacific/ https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/09/17/a-pounding-in-the-pacif...
- torstenvl 5y ago
  The U.S. won the fight handily. It's the massive project of reshaping the political culture of diverse and fiercely proud and tribal people that proved to beyond the capability of our military (a role it was never designed or trained for).
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    Out of interest, do you believe you the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a win or loss for the USSR?
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      Apples and oranges. The topic under discussion is military tech and military ability. The strategic victories or blunders of civilian leadership and diplomatic corps are just as important -- indeed often moreso -- but they are somewhat orthogonal to military strength. There are only a couple ways to lose a battle, but countless ways to lose a war.
      - lostlogin 5y ago
        That’s exactly my point - of course the former USSR and current US have a more powerful military than anything that exists or existed in Afghanistan. It wasn’t solely a military problem but both chose a primarily military solution (as did the British before them).
        torstenvl 5y ago
        You appear to be disagreeing with my disagreement with "the us couldn't win a fight with a bunch of villagers with ak47 for 10 years" How does your point support the original claim? You and I are in agreement that fighting alone can't solve the problem of Afghanistan, but I don't see how that bears any relationship to judging the fighting.
        lostlogin 5y ago
- watertom 5y ago
  Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U. S. Military for the next 30 years. Russia and China can’t deploy troops in their own country. The U.S. military can land 10’s of thousands of troops, with a support supply line any where in the world on less than 24 hours notice, along with all the firepower that comes with those troops. To “win” in Afghanistan would require slaughtering about half the population of the country, something the U.S. military could easily do, but it would make the U.S. into an international pariah, and that would be bad for business. If the U.S. sovereignty was actually threatened all but the nuclear weapons would be unleashed, including all the top secret weapons that have been developed since the Gulf War, it would probably seem like Star Wars.
  - kodah 5y ago
    > Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U. S. Military for the next 30 years I served in the Marines and we were well aware people, especially those with combat experience, were leaving hand over fist. Amos was commandant during my time, and this article tells some of the story about what happened: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/the-marines-corps-needs-to-change-if-it-wants-to-save-retention/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/the-marines-corps-needs-to-c...
  - maybelsyrup 5y ago
    > Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U. S. Military for the next 30 years. Experience at losing embarrassingly. (To guerrillas it created, no less!) > The U.S. military can land 10’s of thousands of troops, with a support supply line any where in the world on less than 24 hours notice, along with all the firepower that comes with those troops. You'd think that, wouldn't you? But it's a paper tiger: post-Vietnam, the US takes great (but quiet) care to ensure that the big song and dance is only deployed on some dirt-poor hellhole with no capable conventional fighting force to withstand the first few episodes of an erect Wolf Blitzer watching B1's firebomb civilians. After a little while, it either leaves in "triumph" (Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I) or it stays and gets bent over the barrel by the insurgencies that inevitably form from the remnants of the regime it invaded (Afghanistan, Gulf War II). It's only good at shooting fish in a barrel and making it look like Michael Bay movie. But after falling on its face so hilariously in Vietnam it knows it can't handle much more than that. > To “win” in Afghanistan would require slaughtering about half the population of the country, something the U.S. military could easily do You know I almost agree with you, but it's plain that when the US military sets its mind to something, failing miserably at that thing can't be far behind. (Unless that something is using our Nintendo pilots to remote-control-incinerate a high school graduation. So you may be right after all.) > but it would make the U.S. into an international pariah More than it already is, somehow? > If the U.S. sovereignty was actually threatened all but the nuclear weapons would be unleashed, including all the top secret weapons that have been developed since the Gulf War, it would probably seem like Star Wars. A cursory glance at the average BMI of our professional fighting forces leads me to suspect that the only similarity to Star Wars in such a scenario would be to scenes involving Jabba the Hutt.
- mc32 5y ago
  The only way to win in a place like AF is if you become a wild animal and just lay things to waste. No one could get themselves to do that. Not the Persians or British or Soviets or Americans. No one wanted to descend to that.
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  I mean the US clearly had the military capability to "win" against anything in Afghanistan. But effective occupations and regime change are brutal. It's not the 1940s - the US public of today would not stand for something as intensive as the occupation of Germany after WW2, for example.
benno128 5y ago
I found this article helpful for more context: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2021/09/18/the-submarine-the-ridiculous/163188720012499#mtr https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2021/09/18/the-submarine... It's by Hugh White the former deputy-secretary of the Australian Department of Defence.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Japan, South Korea, and Australia are all the quintessential middle parties in a bipolar power dynamic between the US and China. Historically, that's turned out pretty well for them, as countries in that position can attract favorable terms from both major powers, who want to court them as allies. Who knows if the government of Australia is thinking in these terms, but I'd be incredibly interested in what concessions and non-public promises Australia got behind the scenes for this. And in terms of future international relationships, it does demonstrate to China that Australia isn't willing to make alliances solely on the basis of economic pressure. It will be curious if (in the medium to long term) China holds a grudge, or tries to reattract Australia with incentives.
  - enkid 5y ago
    China isn't very good at letting go of grudges, it seems like.
    - fspeech 5y ago
      They are just into realpolitik. They will switch their purchases from Australia to the US despite the strategic rivalry because it is in their interest to increase economic dependence there. They will tolerate far more transgression from the US but if others follow they will be sure to set an example of them.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        On the other hand, Australia is a huge source of raw materials for China. As an example, they produce more than 1/3 of the world's iron ore. So this is more than China pushing around another random country. They'd have to cut off their own ear to spite Australia.
Gustomaximus 5y ago
Also for context some years back Australia recalled ambassadors to France over nuclear testing in the pacific. So this is a bit tit for tat in response. Regardless I feel it's incredibly badly handled especially given trade situation with China. Australia is pivoting more towards other markets like EU (negotiations happening currently) and I can't imagine France is going to be too agreeable to this.
- byroot 5y ago
  The last French nuclear test was in January 1996, so rather unlikely.
fmajid 5y ago
Australia cut a huge deal to purchase 12 diesel-electric attack submarines with France 5 years ago, basically taking the current-generation French nuclear attack submarine and replacing the nuclear power plant with a diesel one. Japan and Germany were also in line. France does not sell nuclear propulsion tech because of nuclear proliferation concerns. That project has been running over budget and the Australians were complaining the French were dragging their feet about the technology transfers and establishing Australian manufacturing for the subs, which was a big consideration for Australia, their current obsolescent Collins-class subs being Australian-made. Contrary to what many people say, modern diesel submarines are actually stealthier than nuclear ones, because they are smaller (this would not apply to a modified nuclear attack sub, of course). In 2007 a Chinese diesel sub surfaced near the USS Kitty Hawk carrier, having apparently been undetected in the middle of a US exercise. They do have less endurance, but that is only an issue if Australia expects them to patrol far beyond its borders. Apparently 6 months ago Biden started a secret dialogue with the Australians, offering nuclear propulsion tech to counter China. The US only ever did that with the UK, not even with Canada. The Australians' relationship with China has been deteriorating markedly, even though it is their largest market. Conversely the Chinese banned most Australian imports but not iron ore, because they don't have (yet) an alternative supply to feed their steel industry, although Guinea (in Africa) is a potential candidate. Keep in mind Australia is largely a resource extraction economy, despite being an advanced industrialized nation. The Australians don't have any nuclear tech, not even a civilian nuclear power program, so any nuclear subs would need to be fueled and serviced by the US or the UK, which means Australia is effectively ceding part of its sovereignty (just as the British did, because their Trident nuclear missiles are 100% US-made). This is a significant development as up to now the Australians wanted to preserve their autonomy. What are the French upset about? 1) The loss of a AU$ 90B contract, which means probably a €30B hole in France's naval R&D that will need to be plugged somehow. For a middling country like France, that is a lot of money. 2) France has a significant presence in the Pacific, unlike every other European nation, even the UK. 2M French citizen live there, and 7000 military personnel. France also has the largest maritime Exclusive Economic Zone in the world thanks to its possessions in the Pacific, but there are separatist movements in New Caledonia and Tahiti. The French-Australian deal was also part of a strategic cooperation deal with Australia, as the French are just as concerned about Chinese incursions in the Pacific as the Australians, and it has the benefit of being a deal with a peer, not as the junior partner of the US superpower (although of course Australia is the superpower of the Southern Pacific, but that means little compared to the US or China). This strategy is all in tatters now. 3) The French were blindsided, learning of the AU-UK-US deal from the press release, in the most humiliating way possible 4) They were not invited to participate in this AUKUS military alliance. The consequences are severe and the US completely underestimated that. In 1966 the US commander of NATO refused to answer President de Gaulle's question of whether US nuclear weapons were stationed in France, and in retaliation France withdrew from NATO unified command (and NATO SHAPE headquarters in Paris and Rocquencourt near Versailles had to be moved to Belgium), and expelled US troops stationed in France. France has recalled its ambassadors to the US and to Australia for consultations, which is just one step short of cutting diplomatic relations. To do so with the US is simply extraordinary, it's only happened once before, during the French revolution. President Biden rightfully criticized Donald Trump for attempting to contain China while burning bridges with all its allies at the same time by waging sanctions against all of them, but this is a blunder of the same magnitude. France was the more China-skeptic of the major European powers, whereas Germany basically cares only about its exports and appeases China, and the UK was trying to have it both ways by becoming the chief Chinese investment partner in Europe. With this stunt, the US gets Australia to abandon its former policy of independence from the US, but basically sets back its efforts to mobilize Europe against the Chinese by at least 5 years,

thinkingemote 5y ago

No idea. The leader of the opposition in Australia said, paraphrasing "the us couldn't win a fight with a bunch of villagers with ak47 for 10 years, so it's a bad deal" Australia is weird.

bettem 5y ago
It’s a terrible deal as Australia initially had France redesign a nuclear powered submarine to be Diesel Electric. There was also massive negotiations and posturing from both governments about building the submarines locally. Fast forward a few years and the Australian Government had announced one of the driving factors of this deal is nuclear power rather than diesel electric. We’re also building [reportedly] even less of the Submarine locally now. Not to mention the delivery delays this will cause & our lack of servicing capability. Even as an Australian I can see how this would really annoy France.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  The actions of the US government the past few decades have flat out confused me at times, so I don't really try to understand them any longer. But the more and more I know about the details of this particular deal, the less I understand what exactly Australia is doing here? I wish there was a reliable place you could go for objective analysis in cases like this, but I'll have to settle for simple confusion for now I guess.
  - bettem 5y ago
    This is just my speculation, but I wouldn’t put it past the Australian Prime Minister making a “Captains Call” here. He’s notoriously stubborn and doesn’t listen to experts in all circumstances he should.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  I think the point was that, apparently, the official position of the Australian opposition (who should be more critical of the government) was that the US couldn't fight themselves out of a paper bag, rather than France was better and honour should be important. Perhaps there's no such thing as honour anymore? But this is just my very limited European view of the news, and news is something that I restrict myself on.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > Perhaps there's no such thing as honour anymore? Among governments though? That's rich. They treat their own citizens worse than this. They're happy to move industry and jobs offshore, change policies and legislation at a moments notice.
- contravariant 5y ago
  Is it too early at this point to wonder if there isn't some kind of underhanded deal going on?
  - mmerlin 5y ago
    No it's not too early. We know the French deal was absolutely crappy to begin. Follow the money. Christopher Pyne brokered this $50Bn deal to get re-elected (some boatbuilding would happen in SA) which blew out to $90Bn and rising. Pyne immediately retired (got his pollie-perks-for-life golden ticket stamped) and then immediately became "employed" as a consult with the people profiting massively from this twisted deal against the public interest. Pyne followed the same slimy playbook as Andrew Robb (4) who sneakily slipped the 99-year Darwin Port dodgy deal across the line, and then he got a free $880k "job" with them the day he left parliament shortly thereafter. Borderline treasonous behavior is rife with our political elite (both sides stink badly) https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/would-you-employ-chris-pyne-for-24-5bn/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/would-you-employ-ch... https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/pyne-poisons-ey/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/pyne-poisons-ey/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/01/audit-office-torpedos-80-billion-submarine-pork/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/01/audit-office-torped... (4) https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/06/chinese-sell-andrew-robb-banks-millions/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/06/chinese-sell-andrew...
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Sounds like a good thing the government is scrapping the deal. Hopefully next they can redistribute the Darwin Port to those whose needs are greater.
- drevil-v2 5y ago
  You are conflating actions of different governments over decades into one singular action. The world has changed a lot and if the government of the day feels it needs to alter a $90 billion purchase (which was initially $40 billion by the way before cost overruns) to better protect their citizens then it is their right as elected officials. Also don't focus on the PR sideshow of the submarines, this is about the alliance itself.
  - bettem 5y ago
    It’s the same government that did the original deal.
    - drevil-v2 5y ago
      It was Turnbull government that did the deal with France; since then the Liberal party has had a change of leadership and there has been a national election.
- hash872 5y ago
  France was reportedly stumbling on their end of actually delivering the modified Barracudas though. Here, this is an excellent, very very detailed blog post on the whole topic https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/09/17/a-pounding-in-the-pacific/ https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/09/17/a-pounding-in-the-pacif...
torstenvl 5y ago
The U.S. won the fight handily. It's the massive project of reshaping the political culture of diverse and fiercely proud and tribal people that proved to beyond the capability of our military (a role it was never designed or trained for).
- lostlogin 5y ago
  Out of interest, do you believe you the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a win or loss for the USSR?
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Apples and oranges. The topic under discussion is military tech and military ability. The strategic victories or blunders of civilian leadership and diplomatic corps are just as important -- indeed often moreso -- but they are somewhat orthogonal to military strength. There are only a couple ways to lose a battle, but countless ways to lose a war.
    - lostlogin 5y ago
      That’s exactly my point - of course the former USSR and current US have a more powerful military than anything that exists or existed in Afghanistan. It wasn’t solely a military problem but both chose a primarily military solution (as did the British before them).
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        You appear to be disagreeing with my disagreement with "the us couldn't win a fight with a bunch of villagers with ak47 for 10 years" How does your point support the original claim? You and I are in agreement that fighting alone can't solve the problem of Afghanistan, but I don't see how that bears any relationship to judging the fighting.
        lostlogin 5y ago
watertom 5y ago
Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U. S. Military for the next 30 years. Russia and China can’t deploy troops in their own country. The U.S. military can land 10’s of thousands of troops, with a support supply line any where in the world on less than 24 hours notice, along with all the firepower that comes with those troops. To “win” in Afghanistan would require slaughtering about half the population of the country, something the U.S. military could easily do, but it would make the U.S. into an international pariah, and that would be bad for business. If the U.S. sovereignty was actually threatened all but the nuclear weapons would be unleashed, including all the top secret weapons that have been developed since the Gulf War, it would probably seem like Star Wars.
- kodah 5y ago
  > Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U. S. Military for the next 30 years I served in the Marines and we were well aware people, especially those with combat experience, were leaving hand over fist. Amos was commandant during my time, and this article tells some of the story about what happened: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/the-marines-corps-needs-to-change-if-it-wants-to-save-retention/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/the-marines-corps-needs-to-c...
- maybelsyrup 5y ago
  > Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U. S. Military for the next 30 years. Experience at losing embarrassingly. (To guerrillas it created, no less!) > The U.S. military can land 10’s of thousands of troops, with a support supply line any where in the world on less than 24 hours notice, along with all the firepower that comes with those troops. You'd think that, wouldn't you? But it's a paper tiger: post-Vietnam, the US takes great (but quiet) care to ensure that the big song and dance is only deployed on some dirt-poor hellhole with no capable conventional fighting force to withstand the first few episodes of an erect Wolf Blitzer watching B1's firebomb civilians. After a little while, it either leaves in "triumph" (Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I) or it stays and gets bent over the barrel by the insurgencies that inevitably form from the remnants of the regime it invaded (Afghanistan, Gulf War II). It's only good at shooting fish in a barrel and making it look like Michael Bay movie. But after falling on its face so hilariously in Vietnam it knows it can't handle much more than that. > To “win” in Afghanistan would require slaughtering about half the population of the country, something the U.S. military could easily do You know I almost agree with you, but it's plain that when the US military sets its mind to something, failing miserably at that thing can't be far behind. (Unless that something is using our Nintendo pilots to remote-control-incinerate a high school graduation. So you may be right after all.) > but it would make the U.S. into an international pariah More than it already is, somehow? > If the U.S. sovereignty was actually threatened all but the nuclear weapons would be unleashed, including all the top secret weapons that have been developed since the Gulf War, it would probably seem like Star Wars. A cursory glance at the average BMI of our professional fighting forces leads me to suspect that the only similarity to Star Wars in such a scenario would be to scenes involving Jabba the Hutt.
mc32 5y ago
The only way to win in a place like AF is if you become a wild animal and just lay things to waste. No one could get themselves to do that. Not the Persians or British or Soviets or Americans. No one wanted to descend to that.
LAC-Tech 5y ago
I mean the US clearly had the military capability to "win" against anything in Afghanistan. But effective occupations and regime change are brutal. It's not the 1940s - the US public of today would not stand for something as intensive as the occupation of Germany after WW2, for example.

benno128 5y ago

I found this article helpful for more context: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2021/09/18/the-submarine-the-ridiculous/163188720012499#mtr https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2021/09/18/the-submarine... It's by Hugh White the former deputy-secretary of the Australian Department of Defence.

ethbr0 5y ago
Japan, South Korea, and Australia are all the quintessential middle parties in a bipolar power dynamic between the US and China. Historically, that's turned out pretty well for them, as countries in that position can attract favorable terms from both major powers, who want to court them as allies. Who knows if the government of Australia is thinking in these terms, but I'd be incredibly interested in what concessions and non-public promises Australia got behind the scenes for this. And in terms of future international relationships, it does demonstrate to China that Australia isn't willing to make alliances solely on the basis of economic pressure. It will be curious if (in the medium to long term) China holds a grudge, or tries to reattract Australia with incentives.
- enkid 5y ago
  China isn't very good at letting go of grudges, it seems like.
  - fspeech 5y ago
    They are just into realpolitik. They will switch their purchases from Australia to the US despite the strategic rivalry because it is in their interest to increase economic dependence there. They will tolerate far more transgression from the US but if others follow they will be sure to set an example of them.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      On the other hand, Australia is a huge source of raw materials for China. As an example, they produce more than 1/3 of the world's iron ore. So this is more than China pushing around another random country. They'd have to cut off their own ear to spite Australia.

Gustomaximus 5y ago

Also for context some years back Australia recalled ambassadors to France over nuclear testing in the pacific. So this is a bit tit for tat in response. Regardless I feel it's incredibly badly handled especially given trade situation with China. Australia is pivoting more towards other markets like EU (negotiations happening currently) and I can't imagine France is going to be too agreeable to this.

byroot 5y ago
The last French nuclear test was in January 1996, so rather unlikely.

fmajid 5y ago

Australia cut a huge deal to purchase 12 diesel-electric attack submarines with France 5 years ago, basically taking the current-generation French nuclear attack submarine and replacing the nuclear power plant with a diesel one. Japan and Germany were also in line. France does not sell nuclear propulsion tech because of nuclear proliferation concerns. That project has been running over budget and the Australians were complaining the French were dragging their feet about the technology transfers and establishing Australian manufacturing for the subs, which was a big consideration for Australia, their current obsolescent Collins-class subs being Australian-made. Contrary to what many people say, modern diesel submarines are actually stealthier than nuclear ones, because they are smaller (this would not apply to a modified nuclear attack sub, of course). In 2007 a Chinese diesel sub surfaced near the USS Kitty Hawk carrier, having apparently been undetected in the middle of a US exercise. They do have less endurance, but that is only an issue if Australia expects them to patrol far beyond its borders. Apparently 6 months ago Biden started a secret dialogue with the Australians, offering nuclear propulsion tech to counter China. The US only ever did that with the UK, not even with Canada. The Australians' relationship with China has been deteriorating markedly, even though it is their largest market. Conversely the Chinese banned most Australian imports but not iron ore, because they don't have (yet) an alternative supply to feed their steel industry, although Guinea (in Africa) is a potential candidate. Keep in mind Australia is largely a resource extraction economy, despite being an advanced industrialized nation. The Australians don't have any nuclear tech, not even a civilian nuclear power program, so any nuclear subs would need to be fueled and serviced by the US or the UK, which means Australia is effectively ceding part of its sovereignty (just as the British did, because their Trident nuclear missiles are 100% US-made). This is a significant development as up to now the Australians wanted to preserve their autonomy. What are the French upset about? 1) The loss of a AU$ 90B contract, which means probably a €30B hole in France's naval R&D that will need to be plugged somehow. For a middling country like France, that is a lot of money. 2) France has a significant presence in the Pacific, unlike every other European nation, even the UK. 2M French citizen live there, and 7000 military personnel. France also has the largest maritime Exclusive Economic Zone in the world thanks to its possessions in the Pacific, but there are separatist movements in New Caledonia and Tahiti. The French-Australian deal was also part of a strategic cooperation deal with Australia, as the French are just as concerned about Chinese incursions in the Pacific as the Australians, and it has the benefit of being a deal with a peer, not as the junior partner of the US superpower (although of course Australia is the superpower of the Southern Pacific, but that means little compared to the US or China). This strategy is all in tatters now. 3) The French were blindsided, learning of the AU-UK-US deal from the press release, in the most humiliating way possible 4) They were not invited to participate in this AUKUS military alliance. The consequences are severe and the US completely underestimated that. In 1966 the US commander of NATO refused to answer President de Gaulle's question of whether US nuclear weapons were stationed in France, and in retaliation France withdrew from NATO unified command (and NATO SHAPE headquarters in Paris and Rocquencourt near Versailles had to be moved to Belgium), and expelled US troops stationed in France. France has recalled its ambassadors to the US and to Australia for consultations, which is just one step short of cutting diplomatic relations. To do so with the US is simply extraordinary, it's only happened once before, during the French revolution. President Biden rightfully criticized Donald Trump for attempting to contain China while burning bridges with all its allies at the same time by waging sanctions against all of them, but this is a blunder of the same magnitude. France was the more China-skeptic of the major European powers, whereas Germany basically cares only about its exports and appeases China, and the UK was trying to have it both ways by becoming the chief Chinese investment partner in Europe. With this stunt, the US gets Australia to abandon its former policy of independence from the US, but basically sets back its efforts to mobilize Europe against the Chinese by at least 5 years,