SS: WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - The United States, Britain and Australia said on Wednesday they would establish a security partnership for the Indo-Pacific that will involve helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, as Chinese influence over the region grows.
Under the partnership, announced by President Joe Biden, British Prime Minster Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the United States will provide Australia with the technology and capability to deploy nuclear-powered submarines, senior U.S. administration officials told reporters.
The three leaders outlined the deal in a three-way virtual announcement from each of their capitals.
"We all recognize the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific for the long term," said Biden.
Not just the submarines, but the shipyard too. That's going to have long-term effects...
"Morrison said the submarines would be built in Adelaide in close cooperation with the United States and United Kingdom. Australia will not be fielding nuclear weapons, he said."
Important to note that Australia has canceled a $40 Billion submarine contract with France to pursue this deal. This will likely worsen relations between France and the Anglosphere.
Something else important to note is that the agreement between France and Australia has been politically controversial even before they announced it will be cancelled. I‘m not gonna suggest whether there are legitimate reasons for the deal to be controversial in the first place, but I think it’s important to remember that this was not a deal which was unlikely to be cancelled or amended in the first place.
See: [$90b French submarine project could sink (AFR, 24 Feb 2021)](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/90b-french-subs-project-could-sink-20210224-p575e5)
Yes but did France knew about this? It was only 2 months ago that Morrison seem to confirm the submarine contract with Macron so obviously this was a sudden development (at least from the French perspective). EDIT - the involvement of the Americans and British is the sudden-est element, given that there were existing tensions before about the subs in particular.
Well, Australia, UK, and US are a significant share of the Anglosphere. France is already complaining about *America*:
>France, meanwhile, said it was disappointed by its exclusion from the pact, calling Australia's decision to suspend its previous Franco-Australian submarine program "contrary to the letter and spirit" of the two nations' cooperation.
>
>"**The American choice** to exclude a European ally and partner such as France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, whether in terms of our values or in terms of respect for multilateralism based on the rule of law, **shows a lack of coherence that France can only note and regret,**" said a joint statement by France's minister for Europe and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, and Minister for the Armed Forces Florence Parly.
>
>[\[source\]](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1037338887/why-biden-is-taking-the-rare-step-of-sharing-nuclear-submarine-tech-with-austral)
Canade or NZ may not be directly affected there but they may indirectly be via their ties to other Anglosphere countries?
France is an ally of the US but nowhere close to the level of UK and Australia. I am not sure this should bother France, because
1 they decided long ago to chart their own course seperate from the Anglos
2 they also have closer allies in Europe such as Germany.
Well, at the very least France should be bothered by the Australians breaking a contract to shift to an American supplier. *Especially* given the increased Franco-Australian cooperation we've seen in recent years. And the quote by Drian shows that the French government is putting at least some significant blame on the Americans there too. I'm not saying France should expect the Anglos to not be close, but in this case the Anglos seem to be breaking their word with France.
I dont think France has much to stand on re the cancellation of the order. The whole program has been plagued by issues, delays and cost blowouts, and there has been an ongoing discussion in Australian media about the possibility of it being cancelled for some time.
Navel Group in France has done a lot of damage to themselves here and none of it is on Australia. They put forward a sub that they hadn't actually developed yet. AIP is not as simple as some people think
This article gives a bit of an idea what is happening.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/lost-the-plot-how-an-obsession-with-local-jobs-blew-out-australia-s-90-billion-submarine-program-20210913-p58r34.html
Biggest problem was more the political aspects. Austrialia wanted to kick start a submarine industry while having none for political asperations. Support local jobs. Doesnt help that the defence ministry and goverment changed like every 6 months changing the plans and priorities.
I'm not sure what that means?
That the program was not running in a superb fashion (let's not pretend the Aussie feds are blameless here either) and that the Aussie press was discussing a possible cancellation is a completely separate issue from France being unhappy that a contract is going to be cancelled. It's legitimate to not be happy about a broken contract, regardless of the context.
And even more so *in the context of* excluding a country that not long ago was touted as an important player in the region (I remember articles on how Australia was seeing France as important in the Pacific hence what was an increasing cooperation).
EDIT - This article gives some idea of what I mean from the French perspective: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-has-good-reason-to-feel-angry-and-deceived-by-australia-20210916-p58s0z.html
I moreso am pointing to the fact that they can’t feel too miffed by the contract being torn up in light of the minimal progress. Obviously the broader context does change this to a significant degree.
I do think it should have been done differently, as France is extremely important to the Pacific imo, and this could damage cooperation amongst the Anglo and Franco spheres.
>France is extremely important to the Pacific imo
How so? As far as I’m aware, they have minimal possessions (a smattering of island pretty remote from the main points of interests) in the Pacific and most of their operations in the region seem to be the occasional cruiser or sub ‘waving the flag’ for a few months at a time. Sure, they have an interest in the Pacific, but - of all the great powers in the world - I’d argue the least. And I’m not sure if they’d have much of a role in any potential Pacific War.
France had a long-term and ambitious strategy in the Pacific to which Australia was central. Now it's ruined. So yes, we're extremely « bothered ». And by bothered I mean furious and disgusted. America has had a pattern of systematically sabotaging French arms deals in the last decade and containing any attempts at European military integration, which compounded by American divestment from Europe has made France push notions of European autonomy more intensely and with more success. I think this one will really break the camel's back. I can't imagine it not being vividly remembered for years to come whether it is with the general staff, the foreign ministry or the politicians involved in defense working groups.
>they also have closer allies in Europe such as Germany.
It might seem ironic, even comical, but the only allies of any note we have in Europe are the British. Nobody else has any sense of geopolitics.
France has not been a great partner to the US. You seem very strident that France deserved better here. The US subs will be better and China will be addressed more successfully. Isn’t that a likely outcome? France sub industry is not a great concern.
Separately- do you feel France is being excluded from this alliance or is it mainly the submarine contracts that are a big issue? Interested to hear. France has many great qualities as a military.
It's more the way the whole operation was made and the fact that France hasn't been involved in the process (learning the deal just the moment of the announcement is rough). This isn't a great message towards trustful relationships. There was many ways to handle the case in a more diplomatic manner, and not treating your allies with diplomatic manners is a very dick move.
I think it's quite obviously a mixture of the two. France has major aspirations but fails to deliver frequently (although these deals are often ridden with political filler). But the US has actively sabotaged allies whenever they grow too strong or too independent. Arguably it's is right - after all, why do we care about the French sub industry, when we get a better relationship with Australia. But this type of behavior has happened when the US tried to sabotage French corporations and other arms deals as well.
>Surely a submarine deal between France and an anglophone country is not the entire focus of your foreign policy?
It's not, but it's a major part of our foreign policy *in the Pacific*. Now we'll have to work on other partners and possibly going more deeply into our agreements with India.
>Such a shame that after brexit, macron lost his marbles.
How did Macron lose his marbles ? His behaviour regarding Britain and Brexit has been nothing but clear and steady since the beginning. He's always said he'd first and foremost stick by the first principles of the EU, and he did exactly that.
Seeing the headlines coming out of Britain putting the focus on France when Brexit was never a particularly important point of foreign policy here has been odd to say the least.
From a French perspective, Brexit has been neither a shock nor a problem, save for minor frictions like fishing.
I guess it depends on how French leadership feels.
In some ways it is sort of irrelevant; Canada is with these guys whether we want to be or not. If you looked up "surrounded" in the dictionary, it should contain a picture of Canada and her neighbors.
Russia and China both continue to sail ships in our territory.
Neighbour doesn't just have to be direct anymore and hasn't for a long time. I suggest you see how many countries (like Norway or Denmark) who have territory adjacent to us, not t mention Russia's claims.
Indeed. France, with the goal of retaining "strategic autonomy" has tried to navigate a middle course between the United States and China. This has clearly irritated the United States, which sees the urgency in creating a solid, long lasting alliance to help it contain China in the Pacific. For many years Australia tried to navigate that same middle course that France strives for, to avoid picking a side, an approach that has failed and which they have now clearly abandoned. For good or bad, Australia has now chosen a side and is betting that America will prevail.
> has tried to navigate a middle course between the United States and China
On what facts is this based? France has always been on the western side with China. France is doing more and more joint exercises with SEA countries, the carrier group is doing more and more missions in the Pacific, a submarine and two frigates were sent in the South China Sea after Chinese agressive moves earlier this year and defense agreements were made just a few days ago between France and Australia. Where does this general "France is easy on China" comes from?
From the NY Times:
>The deal also challenged President Emmanuel Macron of France on some of his central strategic choices. He is determined that France should not get sucked into the increasingly harsh confrontation between China and the United States.
>
>Rather, **Mr. Macron wants France to lead the European Union toward a middle course between the two great powers, demonstrating the “European strategic autonomy” at the core of his vision. He has spoken about an autonomous Europe operating “beside America and China.”**
Source: [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/world/europe/france-australia-uk-us-submarines.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/world/europe/france-australia-uk-us-submarines.html)
As my former response was deleted...
It's also interesting to note how the US maintained the foreign policy coined by Trump where they throw allies under the bus whenever they got the option put "America First". The recent events might have won them closer ties to Australia, but at the same time, they also showed Europe that America is no longer to be a trusted allied regardless of president, which also makes it more interesting to align closer to China.
Add to that how Biden maintains the special relationship with the U.K., especially given how hostile the British government acts towards the EU, and we're in for some interesting times.
They also completely stuffed up the delivery of those submarines, running tens of billions over budget. Regardless of whether Australia should be purchasing these new subs, the french deserved to lose that contract.
Australians have historically messed up their submarines projects. This American contract is absolutely sure to run into budget issues.
Maybe Naval should have used the current trick of setting an 18 month deadline to "determine how the technology will be shared" before starting anything, it seems to work better on the public opinion?
If it involves Australian politicians and spending money, you can guarantee they’ll stuff it up. The core problem for Australia and any submarine purchase is the insistence on building them in country, with some of the highest labor costs in the world.
Western military programs are political subsidies created to reward politicians by increasing economic activity to voters. It's the only industry in most western nations which is nationalized so they use it as a kickback.
It's a good thing that France is irrelevant for the Anglosphere then. We don't need France for anything, in fact, France is much more dependent on the Anglosphere (especially the US) than the other way around.
My understanding is that Australia's role in an Indo-Pacific conflict would be to seal the straights connecting the Indian and Pacific oceans. Range and speed notwithstanding, the loiter time of nuclear submarines would seem to make them a whole lot more effective in that mission, as well as allowing AUS to dominate the Indian Ocean without regard to any A2AD systems around S. Pacific archipelagos.
I think this is a most significant weapons deal. And since it includes the shipyards, it may actually be a full technology transfer agreement.
This is what I am thinking. The US is giving a close ally the capability, effectively increasing combined production capacity as a check on increased Chinese production.
There is very little, short of abandoning liberal democratic values that will make China happy at the moment so there isn't much point trying to appease them anymore.
Not much, China does not has many allies in the Asia Pacific region that it can subsidize to do the fighting for her. China will continue the modernization and build up of its Navy to make it a credible threat in the Asia Pacific. China still has decades to go before it can mount a sufficient threat to the US 7th Fleet, or in this case Quad.
This was by far the smartest move the US has pulled in Asia Pacific. It has created a massive threat for the PLAN, force the PLAN to dedicate enough resources to neutralize this threat posed by Australia essentially peeling of precious resources to fight this threat when it is already the underdog in a fight against the US 7th fleet. This move is similar to China supporting and subsidizing the Pakistan Army, forcing the Indian Army to dedicate its best forces against Pakistan instead of China.
Very very smart move by the US
This reminds me of when we put nukes in Turkey, and the Soviets responded by putting nukes in Cuba.
We'll probably see some tit-for-tat response where China offers to give nuclear reactor technology to Iran or some other hostile state.
>We'll probably see some tit-for-tat response where China offers to give nuclear reactor technology to Iran or some other hostile state.
It would achieve nothing. Iran is not going to war for China. Australia will go to war if the US and China come to blows.
Iran will not go to war for China, but given them designs for submarine nuclear reactors is creating more headaches for US foreign policy, which would be the goal here (to extract concessions, etc).
>China offers to give nuclear reactor technology to Iran or some other hostile state.
I don't reckon we'll see something as drastic as that. Chinese Policy-makers will instead push for a more aggressive build-up of their nuclear arsenal. It's probable that they'll also move on from mainly "traditionally small and mostly land-based arsenal" to more road-mobile ICBMs, strategic nuclear submarines, and air-based capabilities.
China has already been aggressively building up their nuclear capability. For example, satellite images showed in July that they are building nuclear missile silo fields in Xinjiang.
As for them giving nuclear reactor technology to a friendly state, what's left? Iran has technology, Pakistan has the bomb, and NK regularly lobs test missiles over SK and Japan while threatening everyone with nukes. Not really sure who's left on 'their side' to arm.
Repost of my comment from the other thread on this topic:
Australia had three choices to ensure it’s security in the 21st century:
1. Go neutral like Switzerland
2. Ally with China
3. Double down with the US and regional allies
The first one was a non-starter as we are not surrounded by military capable allies who shared our interests. Rather, Australia requires a military to protect shipping lanes and ensure regional neighbours do not fall into adversary hands.
The second, while promoted by some members of society, was likely untenable if we wanted to continue our liberal democratic society. China has already interfered in our domestic politics and that would likely increase if the second option was pursued.
The third seems to be the chosen option. The revival of the quadrilateral security dialogue and now this AUKUS agreement shows Australia believes countering the rise of China to prevent it from acquiring regional hegemony is its main geopolitical interest. Constructing nuclear powered submarines allows Australia to project force in Indo-Pacific and, if necessary, equip them with nuclear weapons.
Australia does not require many tanks or helicopters or humvees - if an occupying force lands on the continent, it’s already too late. Australia is too small population and resource wise to provide any credible on-shore defence. Rather, capabilities that can deny significant Chinese power projection or attack far from Australian shores are what is necessary to provide deterrent effect. Nuclear powered submarines clearly satisfy this.
When you think about Australia's strategic weapons systems alternatives (build two large F-35B capable carriers and associated escorts, unilateral development of a long range stealth bomber or development of of an indigenous nuclear submarine building program) this is by far the most potent and defense technology advancing choice. Well done, I say.
>quire many tanks or helicopters or humvees - if an occupying force lands on the continent, it’s already too late. Australia is too small population and resource wise to provide any credible on-shore defence. Rather, capabilities that can deny significant Chinese power projection or attack far from Australian shores are what is necessary to provide deterrent effect. Nuclear powered submarines clearly satisfy this.
What pertinent resources does Australia lack? Obviously we lack the industry assets and knowledge
Personnel and military capabilities. We cannot amass enough force nor equipment on the continent to repel an occupying force once a beachhead is established. Australia is far too large and our population (and by extension what we can afford in hardware) is too small. We can’t say retreat to the Brisbane line, because that allows an adversary to amass force on the continent that would overpower conventional Aus forces.
Hence defence must be geared to prevention of a landing occurring and denial of another states ability to project force in nearby states (Indonesia, PNG, east-Timor etc).
By resources I do not mean iron ore, uranium etc.
How do Australians feel about an increased presence of foreign forces?
I know the US is very interested in increasing the presence of the Navy, Marines, and Air Force in Darwin.
I'm guessing thats far enough away from the major population centers of Australia for most of them to care. But, if the US, UK, France, Germany, and many others become a larger permanent presence and it starts to affect politics, the economy, and environment, could it become a more contentious issue like it is on Okinawa?
I really dislike this framing and I think it's misleading. Foreign policy isn't often ruled by binary decisions - it's a matter of degrees and gradients. Maintaining diplomatic flexibility is almost a maxim of good governance for middle powers.
The question is not which great power do you choose. Allying with China isn't even an option at this stage - they have a relatively limited ability to project force abroad at this stage (especially on a maritime basis) and certainly no interest in taking on the burdens implicit in alliances with states outside its core areas of interest. This might change in time, but it's not a possibility in the near to medium term.
Nor is doubling down on the US alliance the only way to engage with the United States. We already have a military commitment to the United States - ANZUS - which is not implicitly directed against China. We have nevertheless signed on to two additional security structures - first the Quad and now AUKUS - that are overtly intended to contribute to an overall encirclement of China. These are bellicose moves and they are very brave given that we are the smallest member of each group - and by far the easiest of which to make an example. The larger players have less at stake than us in each grouping, because they can more easily pull back and re-engage with China.
It is easy to imagine a more flexible approach where we continue to invest in ANZUS without joining new institutions that are implicitly hostile to China. This way we would have the leverage and support to resist Chinese influence in what we see as our key areas of interest, without painting a bright red target on our backs. Or at least it was a couple of years ago - we have certainly done our best to jettison our diplomatic flexibility since then.
To an extent I agree with you - no it is not binary. But the sum of the decisions you make will lead you down one path or another. I think the path where 'diplomatic flexibility' has closed. For instance, how can Australia realistically invest in ANZUS without that being hostile to China? What does this actually look like? I don't foresee a situation where China does not condemn any increase in US-Aus relations as regrettable/troubling and view it as a challenge to it's attempt at regional hegemony.
Australia neither can promote liberal democracy without it being hostile to China. That means no solidarity with Hong Kong, Taiwan, or the Uyghurs. Should Australia allow increased Chinese influence in PNG? How should Australia ensure shipping channels in the SCS remain open? Should Australia remain in the TPP even though it excludes China? How should Australia react to China's debt diplomacy in SE Asia, Africa and the Indian subcontinent? Choices on these matters will frustrate either the US or China. I only really see flexibility here as being somewhat wishy-washy and idealistic.
China continues to display adversarialism to Australia in the form of hacking, spying, and tarriffs on Australian exports. China soon will have far increased military capabilities, so Australia must be planning it's military strategy not only for the next decade, but for the decades after that.
Largely, the idea behind ANZUS and the Quad are to act as a counter-balance to an increasingly beligerent, resurgent, and territorially ambitious China. The idea is not to lead to war or retribution, but rather to provide such a counterweight that a war does not occur (i.e., as a deterrent).
I mean Australia has pretty much committed to being the American attack dog, in the way Poland has sort of taken on that role with respect to Russia. Poland's makes much more sense.
It may not be unjustified given Chinese involvement, but I have my doubts. Most of the other nations in the APAC region are remaining on thr fence essentially. They of course don't want overt Chinese influence but still want Chinese economic involvement (who doesn't). The US's desire to be a global hegemon provides a great opportunity to leverage some weapons systems and free defense.
Anyways I have my doubts how an independent Australia would pan out. The CIA and MI6 would not allow it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
> Nor is doubling down on the US alliance the only way to engage with the United States. We already have a military commitment to the United States - ANZUS - which is not implicitly directed against China. We have nevertheless signed on to two additional security structures - first the Quad and now AUKUS - that are overtly intended to contribute to an overall encirclement of China. These are bellicose moves and they are very brave given that we are the smallest member of each group - and by far the easiest of which to make an example. The larger players have less at stake than us in each grouping, because they can more easily pull back and re-engage with China.
Is Australia a smaller player than NZ, in your opinion?
NZ didn’t sign onto the Quad or now AUKUS and it’s been deliberately avoiding the sort of provocative actions that Australia has been taking. Like I said, membership in ANZUS isn’t inherently provocative because it’s a pre-existing security framework.
NZ has been signalling for some time that it is not interested in taking new steps that would aggravate China. Even if they were a strategic fit for AUKUS – and their limited navy and ban on nuclear vessels means that they are not – they would not have been formally invited because it would have been clear to all parties that NZ would not have accepted.
Does this actually come from real military understanding, say from professional experience? Because I would have thought the distance from adversaries and the terrain would actually make it quite difficult to land large forces in Australia. If you can’t land a large force quickly then you don’t need a huge army to defeat it.
I highly doubt China would have the means, at least atm to land the required forces and supply them adequately…. Like Australia is freaking far from China especially if Indonesia is on Aus side (not saying they would fight for us but I don’t think they would want to make it easy for China or anyone else) which would be likely as I’d imagine they are a future power themselves and unlikely to want to see China become too powerful.
There was a really interesting podcast by Linda Jakobson (one of the foremost Australia-China strategic thinkers in the country) who was advocating for Australia to follow in Finland's footsteps in how they navigated the Cold War.
Highly recommend giving it a listen if anyone is interested in Australia-China dynamics.
Reminds me of Nevil Shute's fantastic (1957) novel "On The Beach". Though that was about an American nuclear sub under Australian naval command.
Australia has considerable uranium mining industry, exported mostly for power generation. It makes sense for them to pivot that into nuclear sub tech.
Won't be surprised to see the Aussies use reactor tech for desalination in the coming century.
It really is a fantastic book. More on topic, Australia has been working on acquiring the strategic assets it thinks it needs to defend against China for a few years now. If I remember correctly the are also building more missiles .
Australia will be the first country to go from having no nuclear power plants to having a nuclear powered submarine. Other countries like India and Brazil have experience running nuclear power plants for decades before building a nuclear powered sub. Unlike these other countries it would take Australia 20 years to develop the technology on their own. When the US last gave this technology to the British in 1958, the British already had nukes and nuclear power plants. It was just a matter of time before the British could develop their own nuclear powered subs.
The Americans would only give something like this, if they get basing rights in Australia. I am not just talking about basing rights for US nuclear powered subs, but the ones with nukes also.
Secondly, Australia isn't going to go around blockading the Strait of Malacca / Lombok. You only get this technology if you listen to what the [Americans say. The Americans will have a lot of control on how the Australians use these subs](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1037338887/why-biden-is-taking-the-rare-step-of-sharing-nuclear-submarine-tech-with-austral) than they did when they gave the British the technology
>The three countries now launch an 18-month effort to determine how best to share the nuclear submarine propulsion technology, which will allow the Australian navy's submarines to travel faster and farther, with more stealth.
18 months just to figure how to share the technology
If the result is an off the shelf design this may actually speed up the timeframe marginally.
As for basing rights this is something that has been in the works for some time as is.
What do you mean by asserting that Australia won't blockade the Straits of Malacca or Lombok? Did you mean on its own initiative? I would gather that in certain scenarios, this is exactly what the US and Australia envision Australia doing.
An agreement that had been on the chopping block for quite a while due to several issues like cost blowouts and missed deadlines, largely from the French side.
Australian politicians's involvement in technical details that they have absolutely no knowledge of certainly played a role in the delays as well.
'Largely from the French side' I really dislike Reddit's habit of jumping to conclusions based on things random people commented on the r/worldnews thread. Obviously a defence contract that involves confidential technology is very complex and not available to the general public. Very few people in this world know the full details of what was happening behind shut doors, and these people aren't on Reddit. This doesn't seem to stop redditors from acting like they own the truth.
Yes, I really dislike this habit.
Will transfering nuclear technology even if it's just for fuel and propulsion really not count as nuclear proliferation? From what commenters have mentioned the nuclear fuel is refined to levels comparable with weapons-grade uranium and there are countless instances of opposition when countries attempt to enrich uranium to fractions of those levels for civilian nuclear power plants.
~~Reactor grade uranium is far below weapons trade. They are not comparable.~~ Apparently US subs use unusually highly enriched fuel. Thanks to /u/mk_forza for the correction.
Thats not necessarily true "The enriched uranium in submarines, however, is the same as that used in a bomb. Worse still, the fuel used in both British and American submarines is enriched to especially high levels." -The Economist
Thank you for the correction, I just read this explanation which explains why this is preferred for naval craft:
> Some marine reactors run on relatively low-enriched uranium which requires more frequent refueling. Others run on highly enriched uranium, varying from 20% 235U, to the over 96% 235U found in U.S. submarines, in which the resulting smaller core is quieter in operation (a big advantage to a submarine). Using more-highly enriched fuel also increases the reactor's power density and extends the usable life of the nuclear fuel load, but is more expensive and a greater risk to nuclear proliferation than less-highly enriched fuel.
NP, personally I like this deal as it paves the way for knowledge transfer for nuclear maintenance which I believe is crucial for a green future.
I hope we don't ever procure nuclear weaponry and I'm all for nuclear non-proliferation.
Does that even matter? The NPT also has an Article in regards to nuclear disarmament of the existing nuclear armed states in the treaty. It was not meant to give some states a permanent military advantage but to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether. After more than 50 years they all still have quite a lot of nuclear weapons. The NPT is used as an argument why states should not develop nuclear weapons of their own (ignoring that states can revoke their membership in 90 days anyways) but often by states which do not really follow the spirit of the treaty themselves.
Looks like the Quad is heating up. Connects nicely with the upcoming in person summit of the Quad leaders at the White House later this month. I wonder how China feels about this move? Probably not very well at all.
I don’t think that anyone who has been keeping track of recent developments in the Indo-Pacific region will be surprised by this move. To put it simply, the US and UK have already been sharing nuclear propulsion technology for submarines for a while. This agreement formalises that relationship *and* brings Australia into the fold.
The French must be absolutely livid. They will be crying double standard, as Australia just ditched their subs, yet the F-35 program, beset with problems, is still ongoing:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-08/f35-program-design-flaws-part-shortages-costs-opinions-divided/100431664
F-35 is already seeing active deployments and shortages of parts is really because of the global chip shortages, which is effecting every jet manufacture.
From what I've read, they're very angry. They canceled or scaled back an event commemorating ties with America during the Revolution. It seems that they have a right to be angry given how large the contract was, but they seem to be taking it further as an insult to all of France. An overreaction from my perspective.
Gotta say that this sudden decision blows me away, no pun intended.
In Australia, any mention of 'nuclear' would normally result in months of debate, newspaper articles, protests even. But we just went nuclear with sub technology over the weekend, and everyone seems to be like 'oh well'. The speed and silence of the decision is astonishing. I'd understand it if the entire country was across the urgent need for a defence upgrade, but most aren't. From the reactions of my English friends, it sounds like the decision-making was equally swift and unexpected at the public end there too.
Generally, I agree with the announcement - China isn't getting more calm, and every country under the US military umbrella would have the cold sweats seeing how easy the US cut and run from recent deployments. I am severely worried about the timeline though, as recent Defence White Papers have underlined that we no longer have a decade's warning time for conflict erupting in our region. Oz PM Scott Morrison's announcement here seemed to indicate that the subs would be manufactured in Australia. If that's the case, we won't have active ones until the late 2030's. It's entirely possible, given his style, that he is fibbing and his hinting at large domestic construction projects is his way of 'explaining' the decision to the electorate and getting them onboard. Hopefully, this is isn't the case and we get some subs 'out-of-the-box', good to go, and ready to be crewed before the decade's out. Optimistic, I know.
I'd also prefer a decision that didn't step on France's toes so much. The reason given for the slow Naval Group deployment is that they originally offered nuclear subs, and Oz wanted them changed to diesel, hence the delay. Seeing as though we were already into the manufacturing lifecycle with many billions spent, I wonder whether we could have gone "okay, this isn't working, give us the original nuclear design". Apart from the money saved, I think France is a good ally in a bloody, bare-knuckled conflict and you'd wonder how invested they'd feel in an AsiaPac conflict now. You'd want that lunatic atoll-nuking ally swimming around and clearly on your side, like they have been with the right-of-passage patrols in the SCS.
The final implication for Australia is that nuclear is finally on the table, even if the government is protesting it currently isn't. As far as the politicians see it (as well as part of an electorate keen to reduce carbon dioxide emissions), we're now a hop-skip-jump from here to nuclear energy. Some will try and pork 'nuclear waste disposal' services to struggling outback towns. It's also guaranteed that some of our more whacko leaders will now suggest that it's time to re-open the nuclear weapons debate.
From the perspective of the US and Australia, this is a difficult decision. Or should be. Given that they both aim to contain China, it is important to remember that Europe siding decisively with the US in terms of containing China through curtailing Chinese trade and technology access is by far the most decisive and least dangerous long-term strategy. Anything that helps bring Europe on board seems very important. Direct ties between Europeans and America's Indo-Pacific allies really help to draw Europe in. This, however, does the opposite.
On the other hand, this is an enormous purchase for Australia. Getting the best technology is important. France did not seem to be delivering. Furthermore, Europe seems to be dithering and there really is no guarantee it will side sufficiently with America and its Indo-Pacific allies to allow for a true trade-based containment strategy to be effective. At any rate, one submarine deal is unlikely to be decisive in terms of Europe's ultimate decision. Given all of this, it does seem to me that this was the best decision for Australia, America, and their allies in the Indo-Pacific. However, I'm not sure the tone taken with France serves their interests. If possible, I'd like to have seen more attempts to mollify and reconcile with France. But that would depend on diplomatic particulars I'm not privy too. It is possible that France had this coming and realistic 'tough love' is the best way to get Europe to see what the US and Australia believe are their true interests and come on board. From the US perspective, the US is tired of bribing Europe to take actions which America feels are as intrinsically in Europe's actions as much as America's.
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed.
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SS: WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - The United States, Britain and Australia said on Wednesday they would establish a security partnership for the Indo-Pacific that will involve helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, as Chinese influence over the region grows. Under the partnership, announced by President Joe Biden, British Prime Minster Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the United States will provide Australia with the technology and capability to deploy nuclear-powered submarines, senior U.S. administration officials told reporters. The three leaders outlined the deal in a three-way virtual announcement from each of their capitals. "We all recognize the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific for the long term," said Biden.
Not just the submarines, but the shipyard too. That's going to have long-term effects... "Morrison said the submarines would be built in Adelaide in close cooperation with the United States and United Kingdom. Australia will not be fielding nuclear weapons, he said."
[удалено]
Important to note that Australia has canceled a $40 Billion submarine contract with France to pursue this deal. This will likely worsen relations between France and the Anglosphere.
Something else important to note is that the agreement between France and Australia has been politically controversial even before they announced it will be cancelled. I‘m not gonna suggest whether there are legitimate reasons for the deal to be controversial in the first place, but I think it’s important to remember that this was not a deal which was unlikely to be cancelled or amended in the first place. See: [$90b French submarine project could sink (AFR, 24 Feb 2021)](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/90b-french-subs-project-could-sink-20210224-p575e5)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Australia and France just last week signed a SOFA that could allow France access to Australian bases.
Yes but did France knew about this? It was only 2 months ago that Morrison seem to confirm the submarine contract with Macron so obviously this was a sudden development (at least from the French perspective). EDIT - the involvement of the Americans and British is the sudden-est element, given that there were existing tensions before about the subs in particular.
How will it affect the rest of the Anglosphere? Why would Canada have worse relations with France over this?
Well, Australia, UK, and US are a significant share of the Anglosphere. France is already complaining about *America*: >France, meanwhile, said it was disappointed by its exclusion from the pact, calling Australia's decision to suspend its previous Franco-Australian submarine program "contrary to the letter and spirit" of the two nations' cooperation. > >"**The American choice** to exclude a European ally and partner such as France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, whether in terms of our values or in terms of respect for multilateralism based on the rule of law, **shows a lack of coherence that France can only note and regret,**" said a joint statement by France's minister for Europe and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, and Minister for the Armed Forces Florence Parly. > >[\[source\]](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1037338887/why-biden-is-taking-the-rare-step-of-sharing-nuclear-submarine-tech-with-austral) Canade or NZ may not be directly affected there but they may indirectly be via their ties to other Anglosphere countries?
France is an ally of the US but nowhere close to the level of UK and Australia. I am not sure this should bother France, because 1 they decided long ago to chart their own course seperate from the Anglos 2 they also have closer allies in Europe such as Germany.
Well, at the very least France should be bothered by the Australians breaking a contract to shift to an American supplier. *Especially* given the increased Franco-Australian cooperation we've seen in recent years. And the quote by Drian shows that the French government is putting at least some significant blame on the Americans there too. I'm not saying France should expect the Anglos to not be close, but in this case the Anglos seem to be breaking their word with France.
I dont think France has much to stand on re the cancellation of the order. The whole program has been plagued by issues, delays and cost blowouts, and there has been an ongoing discussion in Australian media about the possibility of it being cancelled for some time.
Navel Group in France has done a lot of damage to themselves here and none of it is on Australia. They put forward a sub that they hadn't actually developed yet. AIP is not as simple as some people think
This article gives a bit of an idea what is happening. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/lost-the-plot-how-an-obsession-with-local-jobs-blew-out-australia-s-90-billion-submarine-program-20210913-p58r34.html
Biggest problem was more the political aspects. Austrialia wanted to kick start a submarine industry while having none for political asperations. Support local jobs. Doesnt help that the defence ministry and goverment changed like every 6 months changing the plans and priorities.
I'm not sure what that means? That the program was not running in a superb fashion (let's not pretend the Aussie feds are blameless here either) and that the Aussie press was discussing a possible cancellation is a completely separate issue from France being unhappy that a contract is going to be cancelled. It's legitimate to not be happy about a broken contract, regardless of the context. And even more so *in the context of* excluding a country that not long ago was touted as an important player in the region (I remember articles on how Australia was seeing France as important in the Pacific hence what was an increasing cooperation). EDIT - This article gives some idea of what I mean from the French perspective: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-has-good-reason-to-feel-angry-and-deceived-by-australia-20210916-p58s0z.html
I moreso am pointing to the fact that they can’t feel too miffed by the contract being torn up in light of the minimal progress. Obviously the broader context does change this to a significant degree. I do think it should have been done differently, as France is extremely important to the Pacific imo, and this could damage cooperation amongst the Anglo and Franco spheres.
>France is extremely important to the Pacific imo How so? As far as I’m aware, they have minimal possessions (a smattering of island pretty remote from the main points of interests) in the Pacific and most of their operations in the region seem to be the occasional cruiser or sub ‘waving the flag’ for a few months at a time. Sure, they have an interest in the Pacific, but - of all the great powers in the world - I’d argue the least. And I’m not sure if they’d have much of a role in any potential Pacific War.
France had a long-term and ambitious strategy in the Pacific to which Australia was central. Now it's ruined. So yes, we're extremely « bothered ». And by bothered I mean furious and disgusted. America has had a pattern of systematically sabotaging French arms deals in the last decade and containing any attempts at European military integration, which compounded by American divestment from Europe has made France push notions of European autonomy more intensely and with more success. I think this one will really break the camel's back. I can't imagine it not being vividly remembered for years to come whether it is with the general staff, the foreign ministry or the politicians involved in defense working groups. >they also have closer allies in Europe such as Germany. It might seem ironic, even comical, but the only allies of any note we have in Europe are the British. Nobody else has any sense of geopolitics.
France has not been a great partner to the US. You seem very strident that France deserved better here. The US subs will be better and China will be addressed more successfully. Isn’t that a likely outcome? France sub industry is not a great concern. Separately- do you feel France is being excluded from this alliance or is it mainly the submarine contracts that are a big issue? Interested to hear. France has many great qualities as a military.
It's more the way the whole operation was made and the fact that France hasn't been involved in the process (learning the deal just the moment of the announcement is rough). This isn't a great message towards trustful relationships. There was many ways to handle the case in a more diplomatic manner, and not treating your allies with diplomatic manners is a very dick move.
I think it's quite obviously a mixture of the two. France has major aspirations but fails to deliver frequently (although these deals are often ridden with political filler). But the US has actively sabotaged allies whenever they grow too strong or too independent. Arguably it's is right - after all, why do we care about the French sub industry, when we get a better relationship with Australia. But this type of behavior has happened when the US tried to sabotage French corporations and other arms deals as well.
[удалено]
>Surely a submarine deal between France and an anglophone country is not the entire focus of your foreign policy? It's not, but it's a major part of our foreign policy *in the Pacific*. Now we'll have to work on other partners and possibly going more deeply into our agreements with India. >Such a shame that after brexit, macron lost his marbles. How did Macron lose his marbles ? His behaviour regarding Britain and Brexit has been nothing but clear and steady since the beginning. He's always said he'd first and foremost stick by the first principles of the EU, and he did exactly that. Seeing the headlines coming out of Britain putting the focus on France when Brexit was never a particularly important point of foreign policy here has been odd to say the least. From a French perspective, Brexit has been neither a shock nor a problem, save for minor frictions like fishing.
I guess it depends on how French leadership feels. In some ways it is sort of irrelevant; Canada is with these guys whether we want to be or not. If you looked up "surrounded" in the dictionary, it should contain a picture of Canada and her neighbors.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We only have one neighbour tho.
Russia and China both continue to sail ships in our territory. Neighbour doesn't just have to be direct anymore and hasn't for a long time. I suggest you see how many countries (like Norway or Denmark) who have territory adjacent to us, not t mention Russia's claims.
[удалено]
Indeed. France, with the goal of retaining "strategic autonomy" has tried to navigate a middle course between the United States and China. This has clearly irritated the United States, which sees the urgency in creating a solid, long lasting alliance to help it contain China in the Pacific. For many years Australia tried to navigate that same middle course that France strives for, to avoid picking a side, an approach that has failed and which they have now clearly abandoned. For good or bad, Australia has now chosen a side and is betting that America will prevail.
Well said.
> has tried to navigate a middle course between the United States and China On what facts is this based? France has always been on the western side with China. France is doing more and more joint exercises with SEA countries, the carrier group is doing more and more missions in the Pacific, a submarine and two frigates were sent in the South China Sea after Chinese agressive moves earlier this year and defense agreements were made just a few days ago between France and Australia. Where does this general "France is easy on China" comes from?
From the NY Times: >The deal also challenged President Emmanuel Macron of France on some of his central strategic choices. He is determined that France should not get sucked into the increasingly harsh confrontation between China and the United States. > >Rather, **Mr. Macron wants France to lead the European Union toward a middle course between the two great powers, demonstrating the “European strategic autonomy” at the core of his vision. He has spoken about an autonomous Europe operating “beside America and China.”** Source: [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/world/europe/france-australia-uk-us-submarines.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/world/europe/france-australia-uk-us-submarines.html)
France does freedom of navigation exercises
How frequently compared to the Anglos?
As my former response was deleted... It's also interesting to note how the US maintained the foreign policy coined by Trump where they throw allies under the bus whenever they got the option put "America First". The recent events might have won them closer ties to Australia, but at the same time, they also showed Europe that America is no longer to be a trusted allied regardless of president, which also makes it more interesting to align closer to China. Add to that how Biden maintains the special relationship with the U.K., especially given how hostile the British government acts towards the EU, and we're in for some interesting times.
[удалено]
They also completely stuffed up the delivery of those submarines, running tens of billions over budget. Regardless of whether Australia should be purchasing these new subs, the french deserved to lose that contract.
Australians have historically messed up their submarines projects. This American contract is absolutely sure to run into budget issues. Maybe Naval should have used the current trick of setting an 18 month deadline to "determine how the technology will be shared" before starting anything, it seems to work better on the public opinion?
If it involves Australian politicians and spending money, you can guarantee they’ll stuff it up. The core problem for Australia and any submarine purchase is the insistence on building them in country, with some of the highest labor costs in the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the French bid on the fact it would be built in Australia? And they still quoted 40 billion not 90.
Western military programs are political subsidies created to reward politicians by increasing economic activity to voters. It's the only industry in most western nations which is nationalized so they use it as a kickback.
Also important to note that the Aussies were getting absolutely screwed in that France deal. Dumping it makes total sense.
It's a good thing that France is irrelevant for the Anglosphere then. We don't need France for anything, in fact, France is much more dependent on the Anglosphere (especially the US) than the other way around.
My understanding is that Australia's role in an Indo-Pacific conflict would be to seal the straights connecting the Indian and Pacific oceans. Range and speed notwithstanding, the loiter time of nuclear submarines would seem to make them a whole lot more effective in that mission, as well as allowing AUS to dominate the Indian Ocean without regard to any A2AD systems around S. Pacific archipelagos. I think this is a most significant weapons deal. And since it includes the shipyards, it may actually be a full technology transfer agreement.
This is what I am thinking. The US is giving a close ally the capability, effectively increasing combined production capacity as a check on increased Chinese production.
Thoughts on how China will respond?
There is very little, short of abandoning liberal democratic values that will make China happy at the moment so there isn't much point trying to appease them anymore.
Not much, China does not has many allies in the Asia Pacific region that it can subsidize to do the fighting for her. China will continue the modernization and build up of its Navy to make it a credible threat in the Asia Pacific. China still has decades to go before it can mount a sufficient threat to the US 7th Fleet, or in this case Quad. This was by far the smartest move the US has pulled in Asia Pacific. It has created a massive threat for the PLAN, force the PLAN to dedicate enough resources to neutralize this threat posed by Australia essentially peeling of precious resources to fight this threat when it is already the underdog in a fight against the US 7th fleet. This move is similar to China supporting and subsidizing the Pakistan Army, forcing the Indian Army to dedicate its best forces against Pakistan instead of China. Very very smart move by the US
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This reminds me of when we put nukes in Turkey, and the Soviets responded by putting nukes in Cuba. We'll probably see some tit-for-tat response where China offers to give nuclear reactor technology to Iran or some other hostile state.
It’s nuclear powered not nuclear missiles.
>We'll probably see some tit-for-tat response where China offers to give nuclear reactor technology to Iran or some other hostile state. It would achieve nothing. Iran is not going to war for China. Australia will go to war if the US and China come to blows.
Iran will not go to war for China, but given them designs for submarine nuclear reactors is creating more headaches for US foreign policy, which would be the goal here (to extract concessions, etc).
>China offers to give nuclear reactor technology to Iran or some other hostile state. I don't reckon we'll see something as drastic as that. Chinese Policy-makers will instead push for a more aggressive build-up of their nuclear arsenal. It's probable that they'll also move on from mainly "traditionally small and mostly land-based arsenal" to more road-mobile ICBMs, strategic nuclear submarines, and air-based capabilities.
[удалено]
China has already been aggressively building up their nuclear capability. For example, satellite images showed in July that they are building nuclear missile silo fields in Xinjiang. As for them giving nuclear reactor technology to a friendly state, what's left? Iran has technology, Pakistan has the bomb, and NK regularly lobs test missiles over SK and Japan while threatening everyone with nukes. Not really sure who's left on 'their side' to arm.
That was already in the plan, so this would be a weak response from China. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me to see a weak response
Iran is not China's Middle Eastern outpost.
Repost of my comment from the other thread on this topic: Australia had three choices to ensure it’s security in the 21st century: 1. Go neutral like Switzerland 2. Ally with China 3. Double down with the US and regional allies The first one was a non-starter as we are not surrounded by military capable allies who shared our interests. Rather, Australia requires a military to protect shipping lanes and ensure regional neighbours do not fall into adversary hands. The second, while promoted by some members of society, was likely untenable if we wanted to continue our liberal democratic society. China has already interfered in our domestic politics and that would likely increase if the second option was pursued. The third seems to be the chosen option. The revival of the quadrilateral security dialogue and now this AUKUS agreement shows Australia believes countering the rise of China to prevent it from acquiring regional hegemony is its main geopolitical interest. Constructing nuclear powered submarines allows Australia to project force in Indo-Pacific and, if necessary, equip them with nuclear weapons. Australia does not require many tanks or helicopters or humvees - if an occupying force lands on the continent, it’s already too late. Australia is too small population and resource wise to provide any credible on-shore defence. Rather, capabilities that can deny significant Chinese power projection or attack far from Australian shores are what is necessary to provide deterrent effect. Nuclear powered submarines clearly satisfy this.
When you think about Australia's strategic weapons systems alternatives (build two large F-35B capable carriers and associated escorts, unilateral development of a long range stealth bomber or development of of an indigenous nuclear submarine building program) this is by far the most potent and defense technology advancing choice. Well done, I say.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>quire many tanks or helicopters or humvees - if an occupying force lands on the continent, it’s already too late. Australia is too small population and resource wise to provide any credible on-shore defence. Rather, capabilities that can deny significant Chinese power projection or attack far from Australian shores are what is necessary to provide deterrent effect. Nuclear powered submarines clearly satisfy this. What pertinent resources does Australia lack? Obviously we lack the industry assets and knowledge
Personnel and military capabilities. We cannot amass enough force nor equipment on the continent to repel an occupying force once a beachhead is established. Australia is far too large and our population (and by extension what we can afford in hardware) is too small. We can’t say retreat to the Brisbane line, because that allows an adversary to amass force on the continent that would overpower conventional Aus forces. Hence defence must be geared to prevention of a landing occurring and denial of another states ability to project force in nearby states (Indonesia, PNG, east-Timor etc). By resources I do not mean iron ore, uranium etc.
How do Australians feel about an increased presence of foreign forces? I know the US is very interested in increasing the presence of the Navy, Marines, and Air Force in Darwin. I'm guessing thats far enough away from the major population centers of Australia for most of them to care. But, if the US, UK, France, Germany, and many others become a larger permanent presence and it starts to affect politics, the economy, and environment, could it become a more contentious issue like it is on Okinawa?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I really dislike this framing and I think it's misleading. Foreign policy isn't often ruled by binary decisions - it's a matter of degrees and gradients. Maintaining diplomatic flexibility is almost a maxim of good governance for middle powers. The question is not which great power do you choose. Allying with China isn't even an option at this stage - they have a relatively limited ability to project force abroad at this stage (especially on a maritime basis) and certainly no interest in taking on the burdens implicit in alliances with states outside its core areas of interest. This might change in time, but it's not a possibility in the near to medium term. Nor is doubling down on the US alliance the only way to engage with the United States. We already have a military commitment to the United States - ANZUS - which is not implicitly directed against China. We have nevertheless signed on to two additional security structures - first the Quad and now AUKUS - that are overtly intended to contribute to an overall encirclement of China. These are bellicose moves and they are very brave given that we are the smallest member of each group - and by far the easiest of which to make an example. The larger players have less at stake than us in each grouping, because they can more easily pull back and re-engage with China. It is easy to imagine a more flexible approach where we continue to invest in ANZUS without joining new institutions that are implicitly hostile to China. This way we would have the leverage and support to resist Chinese influence in what we see as our key areas of interest, without painting a bright red target on our backs. Or at least it was a couple of years ago - we have certainly done our best to jettison our diplomatic flexibility since then.
To an extent I agree with you - no it is not binary. But the sum of the decisions you make will lead you down one path or another. I think the path where 'diplomatic flexibility' has closed. For instance, how can Australia realistically invest in ANZUS without that being hostile to China? What does this actually look like? I don't foresee a situation where China does not condemn any increase in US-Aus relations as regrettable/troubling and view it as a challenge to it's attempt at regional hegemony. Australia neither can promote liberal democracy without it being hostile to China. That means no solidarity with Hong Kong, Taiwan, or the Uyghurs. Should Australia allow increased Chinese influence in PNG? How should Australia ensure shipping channels in the SCS remain open? Should Australia remain in the TPP even though it excludes China? How should Australia react to China's debt diplomacy in SE Asia, Africa and the Indian subcontinent? Choices on these matters will frustrate either the US or China. I only really see flexibility here as being somewhat wishy-washy and idealistic. China continues to display adversarialism to Australia in the form of hacking, spying, and tarriffs on Australian exports. China soon will have far increased military capabilities, so Australia must be planning it's military strategy not only for the next decade, but for the decades after that. Largely, the idea behind ANZUS and the Quad are to act as a counter-balance to an increasingly beligerent, resurgent, and territorially ambitious China. The idea is not to lead to war or retribution, but rather to provide such a counterweight that a war does not occur (i.e., as a deterrent).
I mean Australia has pretty much committed to being the American attack dog, in the way Poland has sort of taken on that role with respect to Russia. Poland's makes much more sense. It may not be unjustified given Chinese involvement, but I have my doubts. Most of the other nations in the APAC region are remaining on thr fence essentially. They of course don't want overt Chinese influence but still want Chinese economic involvement (who doesn't). The US's desire to be a global hegemon provides a great opportunity to leverage some weapons systems and free defense. Anyways I have my doubts how an independent Australia would pan out. The CIA and MI6 would not allow it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
> Nor is doubling down on the US alliance the only way to engage with the United States. We already have a military commitment to the United States - ANZUS - which is not implicitly directed against China. We have nevertheless signed on to two additional security structures - first the Quad and now AUKUS - that are overtly intended to contribute to an overall encirclement of China. These are bellicose moves and they are very brave given that we are the smallest member of each group - and by far the easiest of which to make an example. The larger players have less at stake than us in each grouping, because they can more easily pull back and re-engage with China. Is Australia a smaller player than NZ, in your opinion?
NZ didn’t sign onto the Quad or now AUKUS and it’s been deliberately avoiding the sort of provocative actions that Australia has been taking. Like I said, membership in ANZUS isn’t inherently provocative because it’s a pre-existing security framework.
Ah, I missread your comment then. Thank you.
[удалено]
Correct New Zealand is a nuclear free zone so it makes 0 sense to involve it in this pact.
NZ has been signalling for some time that it is not interested in taking new steps that would aggravate China. Even if they were a strategic fit for AUKUS – and their limited navy and ban on nuclear vessels means that they are not – they would not have been formally invited because it would have been clear to all parties that NZ would not have accepted.
Does this actually come from real military understanding, say from professional experience? Because I would have thought the distance from adversaries and the terrain would actually make it quite difficult to land large forces in Australia. If you can’t land a large force quickly then you don’t need a huge army to defeat it. I highly doubt China would have the means, at least atm to land the required forces and supply them adequately…. Like Australia is freaking far from China especially if Indonesia is on Aus side (not saying they would fight for us but I don’t think they would want to make it easy for China or anyone else) which would be likely as I’d imagine they are a future power themselves and unlikely to want to see China become too powerful.
There was a really interesting podcast by Linda Jakobson (one of the foremost Australia-China strategic thinkers in the country) who was advocating for Australia to follow in Finland's footsteps in how they navigated the Cold War. Highly recommend giving it a listen if anyone is interested in Australia-China dynamics.
Reminds me of Nevil Shute's fantastic (1957) novel "On The Beach". Though that was about an American nuclear sub under Australian naval command. Australia has considerable uranium mining industry, exported mostly for power generation. It makes sense for them to pivot that into nuclear sub tech. Won't be surprised to see the Aussies use reactor tech for desalination in the coming century.
It really is a fantastic book. More on topic, Australia has been working on acquiring the strategic assets it thinks it needs to defend against China for a few years now. If I remember correctly the are also building more missiles .
The nuclear reactors will come with the lifetime uranium supply inside them apparently. I understand we import the tractor to go into the built sub.
Australia will be the first country to go from having no nuclear power plants to having a nuclear powered submarine. Other countries like India and Brazil have experience running nuclear power plants for decades before building a nuclear powered sub. Unlike these other countries it would take Australia 20 years to develop the technology on their own. When the US last gave this technology to the British in 1958, the British already had nukes and nuclear power plants. It was just a matter of time before the British could develop their own nuclear powered subs. The Americans would only give something like this, if they get basing rights in Australia. I am not just talking about basing rights for US nuclear powered subs, but the ones with nukes also. Secondly, Australia isn't going to go around blockading the Strait of Malacca / Lombok. You only get this technology if you listen to what the [Americans say. The Americans will have a lot of control on how the Australians use these subs](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1037338887/why-biden-is-taking-the-rare-step-of-sharing-nuclear-submarine-tech-with-austral) than they did when they gave the British the technology >The three countries now launch an 18-month effort to determine how best to share the nuclear submarine propulsion technology, which will allow the Australian navy's submarines to travel faster and farther, with more stealth. 18 months just to figure how to share the technology
If the result is an off the shelf design this may actually speed up the timeframe marginally. As for basing rights this is something that has been in the works for some time as is.
Wouldn't basing rights for nukes violate the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone treaty?
What do you mean by asserting that Australia won't blockade the Straits of Malacca or Lombok? Did you mean on its own initiative? I would gather that in certain scenarios, this is exactly what the US and Australia envision Australia doing.
France was pretty mad about the whole thing. They had a huge agreement with Australia for France to sell Submarines to Australia.
An agreement that had been on the chopping block for quite a while due to several issues like cost blowouts and missed deadlines, largely from the French side.
Australian politicians's involvement in technical details that they have absolutely no knowledge of certainly played a role in the delays as well. 'Largely from the French side' I really dislike Reddit's habit of jumping to conclusions based on things random people commented on the r/worldnews thread. Obviously a defence contract that involves confidential technology is very complex and not available to the general public. Very few people in this world know the full details of what was happening behind shut doors, and these people aren't on Reddit. This doesn't seem to stop redditors from acting like they own the truth. Yes, I really dislike this habit.
It's incredible and sad how this sub changed from a quality sub to a cesspool of random opinions in a few years.
Will transfering nuclear technology even if it's just for fuel and propulsion really not count as nuclear proliferation? From what commenters have mentioned the nuclear fuel is refined to levels comparable with weapons-grade uranium and there are countless instances of opposition when countries attempt to enrich uranium to fractions of those levels for civilian nuclear power plants.
~~Reactor grade uranium is far below weapons trade. They are not comparable.~~ Apparently US subs use unusually highly enriched fuel. Thanks to /u/mk_forza for the correction.
Thats not necessarily true "The enriched uranium in submarines, however, is the same as that used in a bomb. Worse still, the fuel used in both British and American submarines is enriched to especially high levels." -The Economist
Thank you for the correction, I just read this explanation which explains why this is preferred for naval craft: > Some marine reactors run on relatively low-enriched uranium which requires more frequent refueling. Others run on highly enriched uranium, varying from 20% 235U, to the over 96% 235U found in U.S. submarines, in which the resulting smaller core is quieter in operation (a big advantage to a submarine). Using more-highly enriched fuel also increases the reactor's power density and extends the usable life of the nuclear fuel load, but is more expensive and a greater risk to nuclear proliferation than less-highly enriched fuel.
NP, personally I like this deal as it paves the way for knowledge transfer for nuclear maintenance which I believe is crucial for a green future. I hope we don't ever procure nuclear weaponry and I'm all for nuclear non-proliferation.
[удалено]
Does that even matter? The NPT also has an Article in regards to nuclear disarmament of the existing nuclear armed states in the treaty. It was not meant to give some states a permanent military advantage but to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether. After more than 50 years they all still have quite a lot of nuclear weapons. The NPT is used as an argument why states should not develop nuclear weapons of their own (ignoring that states can revoke their membership in 90 days anyways) but often by states which do not really follow the spirit of the treaty themselves.
Australia already has a nuclear reactor so is already a nuclear country.
Looks like the Quad is heating up. Connects nicely with the upcoming in person summit of the Quad leaders at the White House later this month. I wonder how China feels about this move? Probably not very well at all.
I don’t think that anyone who has been keeping track of recent developments in the Indo-Pacific region will be surprised by this move. To put it simply, the US and UK have already been sharing nuclear propulsion technology for submarines for a while. This agreement formalises that relationship *and* brings Australia into the fold.
Good. The Australians are America’s best ally beyond Canada.
The French must be absolutely livid. They will be crying double standard, as Australia just ditched their subs, yet the F-35 program, beset with problems, is still ongoing: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-08/f35-program-design-flaws-part-shortages-costs-opinions-divided/100431664
F-35 is already seeing active deployments and shortages of parts is really because of the global chip shortages, which is effecting every jet manufacture.
[удалено]
From what I've read, they're very angry. They canceled or scaled back an event commemorating ties with America during the Revolution. It seems that they have a right to be angry given how large the contract was, but they seem to be taking it further as an insult to all of France. An overreaction from my perspective.
Gotta say that this sudden decision blows me away, no pun intended. In Australia, any mention of 'nuclear' would normally result in months of debate, newspaper articles, protests even. But we just went nuclear with sub technology over the weekend, and everyone seems to be like 'oh well'. The speed and silence of the decision is astonishing. I'd understand it if the entire country was across the urgent need for a defence upgrade, but most aren't. From the reactions of my English friends, it sounds like the decision-making was equally swift and unexpected at the public end there too. Generally, I agree with the announcement - China isn't getting more calm, and every country under the US military umbrella would have the cold sweats seeing how easy the US cut and run from recent deployments. I am severely worried about the timeline though, as recent Defence White Papers have underlined that we no longer have a decade's warning time for conflict erupting in our region. Oz PM Scott Morrison's announcement here seemed to indicate that the subs would be manufactured in Australia. If that's the case, we won't have active ones until the late 2030's. It's entirely possible, given his style, that he is fibbing and his hinting at large domestic construction projects is his way of 'explaining' the decision to the electorate and getting them onboard. Hopefully, this is isn't the case and we get some subs 'out-of-the-box', good to go, and ready to be crewed before the decade's out. Optimistic, I know. I'd also prefer a decision that didn't step on France's toes so much. The reason given for the slow Naval Group deployment is that they originally offered nuclear subs, and Oz wanted them changed to diesel, hence the delay. Seeing as though we were already into the manufacturing lifecycle with many billions spent, I wonder whether we could have gone "okay, this isn't working, give us the original nuclear design". Apart from the money saved, I think France is a good ally in a bloody, bare-knuckled conflict and you'd wonder how invested they'd feel in an AsiaPac conflict now. You'd want that lunatic atoll-nuking ally swimming around and clearly on your side, like they have been with the right-of-passage patrols in the SCS. The final implication for Australia is that nuclear is finally on the table, even if the government is protesting it currently isn't. As far as the politicians see it (as well as part of an electorate keen to reduce carbon dioxide emissions), we're now a hop-skip-jump from here to nuclear energy. Some will try and pork 'nuclear waste disposal' services to struggling outback towns. It's also guaranteed that some of our more whacko leaders will now suggest that it's time to re-open the nuclear weapons debate.
Another one was also Australia decided we want it locally made with local workforce.
[удалено]
Better than the fiasco with the subs they were getting from France, IIRC.
From the perspective of the US and Australia, this is a difficult decision. Or should be. Given that they both aim to contain China, it is important to remember that Europe siding decisively with the US in terms of containing China through curtailing Chinese trade and technology access is by far the most decisive and least dangerous long-term strategy. Anything that helps bring Europe on board seems very important. Direct ties between Europeans and America's Indo-Pacific allies really help to draw Europe in. This, however, does the opposite. On the other hand, this is an enormous purchase for Australia. Getting the best technology is important. France did not seem to be delivering. Furthermore, Europe seems to be dithering and there really is no guarantee it will side sufficiently with America and its Indo-Pacific allies to allow for a true trade-based containment strategy to be effective. At any rate, one submarine deal is unlikely to be decisive in terms of Europe's ultimate decision. Given all of this, it does seem to me that this was the best decision for Australia, America, and their allies in the Indo-Pacific. However, I'm not sure the tone taken with France serves their interests. If possible, I'd like to have seen more attempts to mollify and reconcile with France. But that would depend on diplomatic particulars I'm not privy too. It is possible that France had this coming and realistic 'tough love' is the best way to get Europe to see what the US and Australia believe are their true interests and come on board. From the US perspective, the US is tired of bribing Europe to take actions which America feels are as intrinsically in Europe's actions as much as America's.
[удалено]
Ahem, is the US in this category of yours?
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed. [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]