12 ms·
US prepares to exempt AUKUS nations from ITAR
- roenxi 2y ago[flagged]
- 127 2y agoIt's quite bold to predict the future for the next 100 years.
- 65a 2y agoI get the strong sense you understand neither ITAR nor this article. Good luck!
- impossiblefork 2y agoSo, if I'm interpreting this correctly, if the current birth rate is sustained, which I imagine is the best one can hope for, and people live on average to 75, then Ukraine will eventually be a country of 7.5 million people?
- iraqmtpizza 2y agoAustralian submarines don't need better propulsion because demographics of ukraine, yes
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- iraqmtpizza 2y ago[flagged]
- CAP_NET_ADMIN 2y agoI long for a few years of peace and prosperity, so that I won't have to read military, geopolitical and pandemic "experts" everywhere I look with half of them being agents of foreign interests.
- threeseed 2y agoIf you want to attack Australia you don't bother trying to invade it which is borderline impossible. You simply blockade any ships arriving here. And being an island that heavily depends on imports that's a problem. Hence the need for long range submarines.
- EdwardDiego 2y agoAustralia's long had subs, but they were, let's say, Indonesia range. These new subs are South China Sea range. So it's an increase in Australia's strategic projection.
- EdwardDiego 2y agoWhy would they be fighting NZ? Someone has to do their scaffolding and run security at clubs on King's Cross. I think you underestimate Australia significantly. They've geared up for a fight with nearby powers they (and NZ) have fought before. And if Aussie ever ends up in a stand-up fight against an invader, NZ will jump back in with them. Admittedly, the ANZACs haven't met the nearby power in regular warfare, only irregular warfare. But each country now has the measure of the others and make plans accordingly. Hence why Australia is very good in jungle environments. And why NZ military maintains close ties with Singapore's military.
- 082349872349872 2y agoTIL the backstory of the folboat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_kayak#Second_World_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_kayak#Second_World_War
- skissane 2y ago> Tactically, Australia will probably just lose any fight against anyone more scary than New Zealand or Papua New Guinea Invading Australia isn't easy. It is a long way from anywhere. It is very big (12x the area of Ukraine). Much of the terrain is inhospitable. It has no land borders. Very different situation from Ukraine, where Russia is literally right next door – and not remote Siberia either, the western densely populated parts of Russia. Yes, in the unlikely event that Australia embarked on a solo offensive expedition against another major country, it would probably lose. But it seems very unlikely that Australia would ever do that.
- hackerlight 2y agoUS is pivoting to APAC, not away. That's the important theatre in the next decade, as agreed upon by basically everyone related to the US military and foreign policy. In particular, pursuing China containment policy, which is bipartisan. Trump may withdraw from Europe but it's unlikely he'd take that approach with Asia. He and the Republicans are hawkish on China, and they don't have the equivalent of a powerful Europe to do the heavy lifting for them. Russia is also only 0.1x the size of China, and the US doesn't have key interests in Eastern Europe aside from NATO preservation. Trump has also given more firm verbal commitments to Asian allies in the past.
- willvarfar 2y agoIn his interview for Time, Trump is isolationist even in APAC: > America’s Asian allies, like its European ones, may be on their own under Trump. Taiwan’s Foreign Minister recently said aid to Ukraine was critical in deterring Xi from invading the island. Communist China’s leaders “have to understand that things like that can’t come easy,” Trump says, but he declines to say whether he would come to Taiwan’s defense. > Trump is less cryptic on current U.S. troop deployments in Asia. If South Korea doesn’t pay more to support U.S. troops there to deter Kim Jong Un’s increasingly belligerent regime to the north, Trump suggests the U.S. could withdraw its forces. “We have 40,000 troops that are in a precarious position,” he tells TIME. (The number is actually 28,500.) “Which doesn’t make any sense. Why would we defend somebody? And we’re talking about a very wealthy country.” https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/ https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-intervie...
- throwaway290 2y agoThat future looks grim.
- skissane 2y agoTrump made very isolationist noises before being elected in 2016 – but once he actually took power, he didn't follow through on the vast majority of them. Once Trump was actually sitting in the White House, he was surrounded by countless advisors and lobbyists working overtime to talk him out of his crazier ideas, and in very many cases they succeeded. Of course, it could be different this time around, if he wins in November. Then again, it could also very easily be largely the same as last time.
- shmerl 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoYou can't do this here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. No more of this, please. Also, it would be good if you'd stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments generally. We've had to ask you this many times in the past, and it's still showing up in your comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- shmerl 2y ago[flagged]
- Wytwwww 2y ago> with all their US-sponsored weapons; under what conditions do we see the UK or Australia using these weapons where there is still a country left over afterwards? The idea is that the more weapons you have the less likely it is that you would ever need to use them in a defensive full-scale war. > Tactically, Australia will probably just lose any fight against anyone more scary than New Zealand or Papua New Guinea. They might lose it strategically, but I don't really see how or why would China want to invade Australia (besides maybe trying to nuke its major cities). It hardly makes sense logistically.
- unixhero 2y agoITAR destroyed my hopes of joining SpaceX. Norway even exports missiles to the US. I don't understand why we cant have free flow of people between Norway and the US. We're not that many.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cjk2 2y agoI worked in the defence sector. There are ways around it. They are just not publicised. We had designated US territory for assembly in the UK so that we didn’t trip over ITAR.
- odiroot 2y agoWas it already a part of US military base in UK or completely new location?
- cjk2 2y agoCompletely new.
- formerly_proven 2y agoIs this like a church, you have to fly in a fat Texan to sanctify the soil as American or is it more paper-based?
- lukeh 2y agoGreat, I can finally download Kerberos!
- smcl 2y agoSo does naval-technology.com think that if they fill up my history with 20+ entries (making it nearly impossible return by hitting "back") I'll just stay on their site forever?
- maxglute 2y agoSounds like PRC either has all the info on Virginia subs or is about to.
- f6v 2y agoChange my view: USA is going to strengthen ties with AUKUS instead of European NATO allies (except select counties like Poland) regardless the administration.
- threeseed 2y agoThis has been the case for decades i.e Five Eyes alliance. So not sure why you think your statement is somehow provocative.
- resource_waste 2y agoPlease, NATO is the only one that actually matters.
- andyferris 2y agoI think a big part of the "value" Australia provides is a physical presence close to the Pacific and East Asia, where NATO isn't really a factor. Obviously NATO is larger militarily but the US will want to protect both flanks (or project power across both the Atlantic and the Pacific).
- Dalewyn 2y ago"Giant, Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier" is definitely a practical benefit that Australia (and also Japan) has that the US really appreciates having.
- PaulRobinson 2y agoThat seems to be the path being travelled on at the moment, and Germany and Poland seem to be planning for that outcome, but there will be serious lobbying - including from the U.K. - because it could be seen by Putin and the wider Kremlin system that keeps him in power as a gentle waving through of Russian tanks into Swedish, Finnish and former Soviet territory.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
- gabesullice 2y agoI wonder if this means SpaceX can build launch and landing facilities in Australia. Australia is really well positioned near the equator. I think it also has better weather than Florida, but I'm not sure.
- PaulRobinson 2y agoThe British space/missile program in the 1950s - which focused on forcing peroxide through a silver mesh - was mostly tested in the Australian outback.
- rcdemski 2y agoAustralia was also under British rule until the 1980s
- nyokodo 2y ago> Australia was also under British rule until the 1980s Not really. The Australia Act 1986 just closed a technical loophole but Australia was for all intents and purposes fully sovereign since ratifying the Statute of Westminster in 1942. [1] 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986
- edward28 2y agoAlso tested nukes out in Woomera.
- inemesitaffia 2y agoSee Rocket Lab in New Zealand. There's already a place in Australia I suspect is developed in anticipation
- cleverpatrick 2y agoHaving extremely little knowledge about the abbreviations (ITAR and others) in this article, reading this as a layperson, this reads like it amounts to a tax break to defense contractors (whether in actual tax breaks, or in just less beauracratic hurdles that no doubt translates to full time jobs). Or is there more to it?
- someguydave 2y agoYes, it has nothing to do with taxes. ITAR is a law that says individuals can be charged with crimes and go to jail if they tell/sell/give almost anything defense related to a foreigner without asking the US State department for permission. The law is vast and vague and “captures” many surprising things. ITAR includes items as mundane as a bolt that was designed for military use. The US government’s interpretation of the ITAR law makes almost no exceptions for allies except for Canada, so it is a huge deal if Australia and the UK become exempt
- tonetegeatinst 2y agoCompliance is also not cheap. If you think getting soc2 compliant or CIPS or hippa compliance was a pain in the ass.....OTAR is like the major boss. ITAR can also intertwine with EAR regulations as well. Parts of itar are very clear....others can be vauge to mean anything and can be up to interpretation of the government. Also key thing to note. If you think HIPPA or OSHA has harsh penalties.... ITAR violations can be career prospect ending. I'm talking massive fines, jail time, and if your a lawyer you get disbarred iirc.
- beefnugs 2y agoITAR is dumb madness: A canadian software company, doing business with french hardware manufacturer for a canadian client has ZERO connection to the US, but still under full control and compliance because of... the nature of the hardware
- quartesixte 2y agoYup ITAR/EAR follows the specific item/technology. You can get in major trouble even if you never interacted with a US counterpart at any point in the supply chain in this way. It might seem draconic, but it's to plug a very easy loophole that can be exploited, and people actually do try to exploit when they don't understand exactly to what the regulations apply to.
- Gud 2y agoI suspect that this is somehow Peter Becks doing. Rocket lab is in my opinion the coolest player in the space race. Carbon fiber rockets! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhnBn_c9f8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhnBn_c9f8Q
- sam_bristow 2y agoBut Rocket Lab is based in New Zealand, and NZ isn't part of AUKUS... (disclosure: I work at Rocket Lab, but not on anything to donwith this.)
- indemnity 2y agoNot at the moment, though there does seem to be a bit of chatter about joining from the pols. But as a half hearted member due to the nuclear issue, and historically a bit of a weak link in the Five Eyes, ITAR privileges are likely not on the cards.
- exabrial 2y agoI'm guessing why Australia is so important to have in a partnership is the uranium reserves, no? In addition to geopolitics of course. Also, I would love to have the French as part of AUKUS (but that _would_ really mess up a great acronym). The reason being I'm impressed with the French's nuclear nuclear experience through power generation (although, it's been a bit stagnent the last 20+ years). I'm curious if this was just too complicated to broker for some reason (4 parties instead of 3) or there was another reason I'm missing. As the article points out, French submarine reactors use different fuel, which could be a reason, but that seems like something that could be figured out given that we're talking about a clean sheet design anyway.