AUKUS Row: French ambassador to return to US following Macron/Biden tête-à-tête

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Aukus: UK, US and Australia launch pact to counter China

WWW.BBC.COM

---

Beijing says the deal, involving nuclear-powered submarines, undermines regional peace.

 

Quote

 

The UK, US and Australia have announced a historic security pact in the Asia-Pacific, in what's seen as an effort to counter China.

 

It will let Australia build nuclear-powered submarines for the first time, using technology provided by the US.

 

The Aukus pact, which will also cover AI and other technologies, is one of the countries' biggest defence partnerships in decades, analysts say.

 

 

 

Why are the French angry about this?

 

‘Stab in the back’: French fury as Australia scraps submarine deal | France | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

France’s foreign minister says move to buy nuclear subs from US in new defence pact is betrayal of trust

 

Quote

 

France has expressed fury over Australia’s surprise decision to scrap a huge submarine deal in favour of nuclear-powered subs from the US, describing it as a “stab in the back” from Canberra and a strain on its friendly relationship with Washington.

 

“It’s really a stab in the back. We had established a relationship of trust with Australia, this trust has been betrayed,” the French foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, told France Info radio on Thursday.

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

If you're wondering why New Zealand isn't part of this pact (and wasn't even asked) despite being part of the ANZUS pact:

 

NZ says Australia's new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday that Australia's new nuclear-powered submarines would not be allowed in its territorial waters under a long standing nuclear free policy.

 

[Jwheel86]

 

I'm leaning in this direction. 

[CayceG]

I guess if Australia wants to spend their money on operating nuclear subs, sure...

[Jwheel86]

Buying Tomahawks for their Destroyers too, along with other goodies.

 

Australia buying Tomahawk missiles for air warfare destroyers - Defense Brief

DEFBRIEF.COM

---

After the shock announcement that it would walk away from the purchase of French submarines and instead build nuclear-powered submarines together with the US and UK, Australia announced the purchase of new missile systems for its armed forces. More specifically, the country's prime minister said

 

[Keyser_Soze]

Australia will become the new super power.

[Zaku3]

2 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Australia will become the new super power.

 

Emu Empire will rise again. (HOI4 names the fascist Australia Emu Empire)

[mclumber1]

Good for Australia.  Nuclear powered subs are probably a better option than diesel electric, considering the country's vast maritime boundaries and long distances to China.  The more they can stay submerged during a potential conflict, the less likely they will be detected by the enemy.  

[Zaku3]

26 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Good for Australia.  Nuclear powered subs are probably a better option than diesel electric, considering the country's vast maritime boundaries and long distances to China.  The more they can stay submerged during a potential conflict, the less likely they will be detected by the enemy.  

 

They have alot of Uranium as well.

[CayceG]

Between the acquisition of new submarines (that will clearly have vertical launch systems) and tomahawk cruise missiles, this will give Australia 2 of the 3 pieces they need for a nuclear deterrent. 

 

The other piece is a nuclear warhead. Australia is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty... but so is Germany. And Germany has a nuclear sharing agreement with the US. 

[mclumber1]

4 minutes ago, CayceG said:

Between the acquisition of new submarines (that will clearly have vertical launch systems) and tomahawk cruise missiles, this will give Australia 2 of the 3 pieces they need for a nuclear deterrent. 

 

The other piece is a nuclear warhead. Australia is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty... but so is Germany. And Germany has a nuclear sharing agreement with the US. 

 

Australia is pretty dumb when it comes to nuclear power generation though.

[Jwheel86]

Macron has retaliated 

 

[SuperSpreader]

haha fuck france

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, SuperSpreader said:

haha fuck france

 

France was nice enough to do this for us, so I think we did them dirty here:

 

France calls killing of ISIS leader big victory

WWW.NBCNEWS.COM

---

French President Emmanuel Macron announced the death of Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahrawi overnight.

 

[Massdriver]

This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me in the face of China's rise. France got left out because they're not anti China enough for us I guess. I also read that France has some contracts for some diesel subs with Australia, so this is also about money.

[CayceG]

 

1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me in the face of China's rise. France got left out because they're not anti China enough for us I guess. I also read that France has some contracts for some diesel subs with Australia, so this is also about money.

 

France got left out because they were hemming and hawing over the technology transfer about those specific submarines. Not coincidentally, it took France over 10 years to get the first boat of the class Australia wanted to buy in the water. So they're just big, red, and mad about the fact that they couldn't deliver and that Australia is more inclined to go with someone who can. 

[Mercury33]

So we’re building them and they’re buying? Or we’re helping to teach them how so they can make their own? Or both?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, Mercury33 said:

 Or we’re helping to teach them how so they can make their own?

 

The US and the UK are providing the technology and expertise for Australia to build them.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Former UK PM Theresa May has some very valid concerns about this pact:

 

Theresa May questions whether Aukus pact could lead to war over Taiwan | Defence policy | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Ex-PM asks Boris Johnson what UK’s obligations would be under deal if China attempted to invade island

 

[Jwheel86]

11 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

So we’re building them and they’re buying? Or we’re helping to teach them how so they can make their own? Or both?

 

Besides small stuff pretty much all military ship builders in the US are at capacity. 

[Mercury33]

4 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Besides small stuff pretty much all military ship builders in the US are at capacity. 

Which is why I was curious. I live close to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Bath Ironworks and everyone I know that works there says they’re crazy busy. So I was curious where they were gonna be built. 

[mclumber1]

Westinghouse or G&E will likely build the reactors for Australia - both of them currently build them for US subs and aircraft carriers. I'd assume that the sub crews will receive training in the US at least initially.  

[Jwheel86]

8 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

Which is why I was curious. I live close to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Bath Ironworks and everyone I know that works there says they’re crazy busy. So I was curious where they were gonna be built. 

 

The US is going to start looking for another yard to build Frigates soon and Bath is a likely bidder so they'll be more busy soon. 

 

Besides the subs the Australians are also building these with British assistance. 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

We should be putting these ships in the trash bin

[BloodyHell]

22 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

If you're wondering why New Zealand isn't part of this pact (and wasn't even asked) despite being part of the ANZUS pact:

 

NZ says Australia's new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday that Australia's new nuclear-powered submarines would not be allowed in its territorial waters under a long standing nuclear free policy.

 

I'll never get the fight against nuclear power, but most especially when the people against it are also dead set on fighting greenhouse gas. We should be using more nuclear. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

I'll never get the fight against nuclear power, but most especially when the people against it are also dead set on fighting greenhouse gas. We should be using more nuclear. 

Processing nuclear fuel into a usable form in the US has historically been tied to the creation and development of nuclear weapons which are objectively bad.

 

And the processing of uranium is dangerous in and of itself. My grandfather who I never met died of thyroid cancer after working at a uranium enrichment facility in southern Ohio for 20+ years!

[CayceG]

10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Processing nuclear fuel into a usable form in the US has historically been tied to the creation and development of nuclear weapons which are objectively bad.

 

And the processing of uranium is dangerous in and of itself. My grandfather who I never met died of thyroid cancer after working at a uranium enrichment facility in southern Ohio for 20+ years!

 

The fuel process does not exclusively have to arrive at nuclear weapons material. 

 

20 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

I'll never get the fight against nuclear power, but most especially when the people against it are also dead set on fighting greenhouse gas. We should be using more nuclear. 

 

It comes back to a lot of things that bmbmbm mentioned. 

 

In the 60s, the only nuclear power technology we had was that which lead to The Bomb. Safety issues surrounding the production of the fuel were pretty common. And the anti-nuclear weapons movement was coming into prominence. All of that combined pretty well for all those boomer hippies. 

 

Now, the CORRECT analysis of it all leads to the conclusion that you CAN have green power and reduce CO2 emissions WITH nuclear power. 

The nuclear weapons thing can be alleviated with different fuel cycles and processing techniques and reactor designs (which currently exist). 

The safety issue was solely because of corporate resistance to regulation and federal regulators just not going after those safety issues (and the federal agencies surrounding weapons production CAUSING many of the safety issues). 

 

If you haven't heard of Karen Silkwood, she was a technician that worked at a fuel production plant in Oklahoma that uncovered a bunch of safety regulations the company was violating. She started blowing the whistle. And mYsTeRiOusLy she wound up being contaminated with uranium in a few instances, including her house. And as she was traveling to hand over documents to a reporter to further add proof to the accusations, she was run off the road and killed. The documents she had were never recovered. 

 

Basically, the company she worked for had her bumped off because she was trying to make work safer, which would mean fewer profits. 

 

 

Shit like that is why all this is intertwined. 

[brucoe]

If we truly wanted to save money, all we'd have to do is find the latest Bond villain and see where he's hiding his secret sub fleet and then just take it over. The savings would be enormous..

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

If the UK's Labour Party was remotely competent, they would make hay of this pact and turn it into a campaign issue to hammer the Tories with in the next general election.

 

The implication that the UK could be dragged by the US into another conflict -- except this time it would be with China over Taiwan -- should provide some decent fodder to compare to the UK's involvement in the Iraq debacle, but with EXPONENTIALLY greater risk.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

33 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

If the UK's Labour Party was remotely competent, they would make hay of this pact and turn it into a campaign issue to hammer the Tories with in the next general election.

 

The implication that the UK could be dragged by the US into another conflict -- except this time it would be with China over Taiwan -- should provide some decent fodder to compare to the UK's involvement in the Iraq debacle, but with EXPONENTIALLY greater risk.

If only labo(u)r wasn't complicit in the Iraq debacle!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If only labo(u)r wasn't complicit in the Iraq debacle!

 

That was "old" Labour

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

10 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

That was "old" Labour

 

What's the difference? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

What's the difference? 

 

The actual experience of the Iraq.

[BloodyHell]

3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Processing nuclear fuel into a usable form in the US has historically been tied to the creation and development of nuclear weapons which are objectively bad.

 

And the processing of uranium is dangerous in and of itself. My grandfather who I never met died of thyroid cancer after working at a uranium enrichment facility in southern Ohio for 20+ years!

First of all, I'm sorry about your grandfather. I'm not trying to diminish any pain or anger you might have towards nuclear energy, I cannot imagine having loss my grandfather to it. But how many will we lose to climate change? How far would we have come if we had worked to educate on and proliferate nuclear energy? How far could we have pushed automation of those technologies to minimize human interaction? 

 

People associate nuclear with weapons because thats the narrative government and media have pushed for  7 decades. I just think it would have been way smarter than what we're currently doing.

 

Hell, we're probably at the point where we could store the waste in space if we had the political will and common sense to build vaults to hold it safely. And yes, i know that's fucking stupid to even think of because we're screwed.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

25 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

First of all, I'm sorry about your grandfather. I'm not trying to diminish any pain or anger you might have towards nuclear energy, I cannot imagine having loss my grandfather to it. But how many will we lose to climate change? How far would we have come if we had worked to educate on and proliferate nuclear energy? How far could we have pushed automation of those technologies to minimize human interaction? 

 

People associate nuclear with weapons because thats the narrative government and media have pushed for  7 decades. I just think it would have been way smarter than what we're currently doing.

 

Hell, we're probably at the point where we could store the waste in space if we had the political will and common sense to build vaults to hold it safely. And yes, i know that's fucking stupid to even think of because we're screwed.

 

I'm not anti nuclear but a lot of proponents like to brush over the immediate human toll that nuclear supply chains may have