Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Aesma wrote:I've read that France didn't want to do much technology transfer.There is no plan to develop any kind of nuclear industry so it doesn't seem to be the goal. France would of course be willing to help otherwise, we sold nuclear reactors to China after all.
Some critics of the agreement warn that it sets a dangerous precedent for countries to exploit a loophole in the NPT. The treaty allows non nuclear weapon countries to build nuclear-powered submarines, and to remove the fissile material they need for the submarine reactors from the stockpile monitored by the global watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, opening up the possibility it could be diverted to making weapons. Australia would be the first country to make use of the loophole.
“My concern is not that Australia would misuse the nuclear material we give them and use the loophole to build nuclear weapons,” James Acton, co-chair of the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said. “My concern is it sets a terrible precedent that other countries could abuse. “Iran is the obvious example here. We would go batshit if Iran removed nuclear material from safeguards.”
extender wrote:International diplomacy is how nations screw each other over. This is not the first time, and won't be the last time these things happen. France has always been a dark horse in arms sales. Sometimes you're the pigeon, sometimes you're the statue.
Tugger wrote:I feel that France is really over-reacting. "Drama queen" kinda stuff. And dragging on the USA for it? Any problem is completely between France and Australia. And with their "agreement" being 5 years along and Australia doing this, something tells me the agreement wasn't as agreeable as France is making it out to be.
Tugg
The degree of French anger recalled the acrimony between Paris and Washington in 2003 over the Iraq war and involved language not seen since then. “This is not done between allies,” Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, said in an interview with Franceinfo radio, calling the deal a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision.”
French officials described the exclusion of France, a NATO member, from the new British-Australian-U.S. military partnership as a moment that will deepen an already widening rift between longstanding allies. President Emmanuel Macron has already said he intends to pursue French “strategic autonomy” from the United States.
Still, the lack of consultation — and the last-minute revelation — has infuriated French officials in Washington, who on Thursday angrily canceled a gala at their Washington embassy to protest what they called a rash and sudden policy decision that resembled those of former President Donald J. Trump.
Asked what Mr. Biden thinks about being compared to Mr. Trump, Ms. Psaki shot back: “The president doesn’t think about it much.”
The gala was to commemorate the “240th Anniversary of the Battle of the Capes,” celebrating the French navy’s help in a 1781 battle during America’s fight for independence.
Much of that "already widening" was due to French pushing of an EU military, etc. If you look at it in realpolitik terms, what was more essential in the Pacific, a very occasional visit by the CdG CVN or the 8 new SSNs based in the region. I think the answer is obvious. It seems like the British are taking the Pacific more seriously the last year.deepen an already widening rift between longstanding allies
Aesma wrote:Tugger wrote:I feel that France is really over-reacting. "Drama queen" kinda stuff. And dragging on the USA for it? Any problem is completely between France and Australia. And with their "agreement" being 5 years along and Australia doing this, something tells me the agreement wasn't as agreeable as France is making it out to be.
Tugg
We're talking about a contract worth 56 billion euros, or about 0,023% of our GDP. I'm sure the US would take well to lose a contract of comparable size in similar circumstances, it would be a mere 522 billion dollars, who cares, right ?
Some choice quotes from the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/p ... arine.html) :The degree of French anger recalled the acrimony between Paris and Washington in 2003 over the Iraq war and involved language not seen since then. “This is not done between allies,” Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, said in an interview with Franceinfo radio, calling the deal a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision.”French officials described the exclusion of France, a NATO member, from the new British-Australian-U.S. military partnership as a moment that will deepen an already widening rift between longstanding allies. President Emmanuel Macron has already said he intends to pursue French “strategic autonomy” from the United States.Still, the lack of consultation — and the last-minute revelation — has infuriated French officials in Washington, who on Thursday angrily canceled a gala at their Washington embassy to protest what they called a rash and sudden policy decision that resembled those of former President Donald J. Trump.Asked what Mr. Biden thinks about being compared to Mr. Trump, Ms. Psaki shot back: “The president doesn’t think about it much.”The gala was to commemorate the “240th Anniversary of the Battle of the Capes,” celebrating the French navy’s help in a 1781 battle during America’s fight for independence.
Aesma wrote:In the meantime the US is asking its European allies to come to the Western Pacific to do "freedom of navigation" stuff.
Derico wrote:To be honest, these kind of games between the big boys with nukes, makes the case why those without nukes who can build them, should. And to hell with non-proliferation because you cannot trust no one anymore. The only trustworthy nukes are the nukes you own and can hit back with.
Tugger wrote:Aesma wrote:Tugger wrote:I feel that France is really over-reacting. "Drama queen" kinda stuff. And dragging on the USA for it? Any problem is completely between France and Australia. And with their "agreement" being 5 years along and Australia doing this, something tells me the agreement wasn't as agreeable as France is making it out to be.
Tugg
We're talking about a contract worth 56 billion euros, or about 0,023% of our GDP. I'm sure the US would take well to lose a contract of comparable size in similar circumstances, it would be a mere 522 billion dollars, who cares, right ?
Some choice quotes from the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/p ... arine.html) :The degree of French anger recalled the acrimony between Paris and Washington in 2003 over the Iraq war and involved language not seen since then. “This is not done between allies,” Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, said in an interview with Franceinfo radio, calling the deal a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision.”French officials described the exclusion of France, a NATO member, from the new British-Australian-U.S. military partnership as a moment that will deepen an already widening rift between longstanding allies. President Emmanuel Macron has already said he intends to pursue French “strategic autonomy” from the United States.Still, the lack of consultation — and the last-minute revelation — has infuriated French officials in Washington, who on Thursday angrily canceled a gala at their Washington embassy to protest what they called a rash and sudden policy decision that resembled those of former President Donald J. Trump.Asked what Mr. Biden thinks about being compared to Mr. Trump, Ms. Psaki shot back: “The president doesn’t think about it much.”The gala was to commemorate the “240th Anniversary of the Battle of the Capes,” celebrating the French navy’s help in a 1781 battle during America’s fight for independence.
Yes, I understand but again, it appears Australia wanted nuclear and France was not willing to "go nuclear" and so they sought out a partner(s) that would.
So I get all the indignation and the real loss, both economically and status-wise, but the customer gets to choose ultimately.
What do you think otherwise should have happened?
And if the shoe were on the other foot do you think France would have NOT done a deal with a partner that wanted to do one with them for something the USA was not willing to provide? Even if it meant obviating an existing contract with the USA? No, I think not. (I kinda think France would revel in being able to do such.)
Tugg
zkojq wrote:With the Submarines, France offered nuclear submarines, Australia wanted them redesigned to be diesel electric. Then they kept changing their desired specifications (with an the expected effect on budgets and completion dates). Then they did want nuclear after all.
wingman wrote:zkojq wrote:With the Submarines, France offered nuclear submarines, Australia wanted them redesigned to be diesel electric. Then they kept changing their desired specifications (with an the expected effect on budgets and completion dates). Then they did want nuclear after all.
Is this true? I can't find any corroboration, albeit a quick search only, that France had nuclear boats on the table. More facts are coming out now that this contract was not going well at all. In France's defense I can't think of a single one that ever did. But let's wait to see more facts come out. I see a lot of evidence already that this should not have come as a surprise to people in the know on the French side. The fact remains, with China dialing its nine dash line up to eleven, diesel boats aren't the right tool for the job. And let's not kid ourselves, a partnership like this sends an unequivocal message to China and, equally important, another from the US to its allies in Asia. The protection they're seeking to confirm and bolster in the face of China's military aspirations could never come from the EU. That's not an insult, that's a fact based on Francs's and the EU's regional capabilities and stated policy of non confrontation (with Russia or China). This whole deal is superbly rational on so many levels it begs the question how it didn't happen 10 years ago.
Mortyman wrote:This could have been handled much better by the US and especially Australia. France has every right to be angry. France also is a major player in the Indo Pacific area and it would be wise of the US and Australia to have good relations with France . This was not helpful.
casinterest wrote:Here is the concerning part for the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ship-aukusSome critics of the agreement warn that it sets a dangerous precedent for countries to exploit a loophole in the NPT. The treaty allows non nuclear weapon countries to build nuclear-powered submarines, and to remove the fissile material they need for the submarine reactors from the stockpile monitored by the global watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, opening up the possibility it could be diverted to making weapons. Australia would be the first country to make use of the loophole.
“My concern is not that Australia would misuse the nuclear material we give them and use the loophole to build nuclear weapons,” James Acton, co-chair of the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said. “My concern is it sets a terrible precedent that other countries could abuse. “Iran is the obvious example here. We would go batshit if Iran removed nuclear material from safeguards.”
I understand the blow to France, but at this point, the US and UK are looking to stabilize the region and help Australia as they come under ever increasing pressure from China.
Hopefully down the road there are avenues to bring France back into this, but for now this is what we have.
Tugger wrote:Derico wrote:To be honest, these kind of games between the big boys with nukes, makes the case why those without nukes who can build them, should. And to hell with non-proliferation because you cannot trust no one anymore. The only trustworthy nukes are the nukes you own and can hit back with.
The only trustworthy nukes are ones that aren't built and can't be used.
While in someways you are right, it only leads to greater likelyhood of nuclear war and mass death and destruction.
Tugg
Derico wrote:To be honest, these kind of games between the big boys with nukes, makes the case why those without nukes who can build them, should. And to hell with non-proliferation because you cannot trust no one anymore. The only trustworthy nukes are the nukes you own and can hit back with.
Derico wrote:Tugger wrote:Derico wrote:To be honest, these kind of games between the big boys with nukes, makes the case why those without nukes who can build them, should. And to hell with non-proliferation because you cannot trust no one anymore. The only trustworthy nukes are the nukes you own and can hit back with.
The only trustworthy nukes are ones that aren't built and can't be used.
While in someways you are right, it only leads to greater likelyhood of nuclear war and mass death and destruction.
Tugg
I think it's a wash. I think everyone that could have nukes having them would make it less likely there would be a destructive mass casualty war, because it would make any nation think 10 times before attacking another, just as it occurs now between the ones that do.
It would make the chance of a rogue nuclear event clearly more likely, as there would be a far greater chance that they fall into the hands of a non-government actor with evil intentions. It's pick your poison really.
No nukes is clearly not an option given the craven attitude of the nuclear powers.
ThePointblank wrote:Derico wrote:Tugger wrote:The only trustworthy nukes are ones that aren't built and can't be used.
While in someways you are right, it only leads to greater likelyhood of nuclear war and mass death and destruction.
Tugg
I think it's a wash. I think everyone that could have nukes having them would make it less likely there would be a destructive mass casualty war, because it would make any nation think 10 times before attacking another, just as it occurs now between the ones that do.
It would make the chance of a rogue nuclear event clearly more likely, as there would be a far greater chance that they fall into the hands of a non-government actor with evil intentions. It's pick your poison really.
No nukes is clearly not an option given the craven attitude of the nuclear powers.
We are talking about nuclear powered submarines, not nuclear armed submarines.
It is likely that with an Australian nuclear submarine, while the bulk of the boat will be built in Australia, the reactor section would be built overseas and shipped to Australia to be fitted to the rest of the sections. Major servicing and refuelling could of course be done overseas.
casinterest wrote:
I understand the blow to France, but at this point, the US and UK are looking to stabilize the region and help Australia as they come under ever increasing pressure from China.
Hopefully down the road there are avenues to bring France back into this, but for now this is what we have.
Mortyman wrote:This could have been handled much better by the US and especially Australia. France has every right to be angry. France also is a major player in the Indo Pacific area and it would be wise of the US and Australia to have good relations with France . This was not helpful.
Aesma wrote:Mortyman wrote:This could have been handled much better by the US and especially Australia. France has every right to be angry. France also is a major player in the Indo Pacific area and it would be wise of the US and Australia to have good relations with France . This was not helpful.
I think from France's POV this is the main point. Even the US admits that when they say they told France in advance, they mean they called the Elysée palace a couple hours before the announcement !
If Australia changed its geopolitical stance and instead of going with relatively neutral France wants to escalate things with an alliance with the US, then everyone will admit that changing the order makes sense (although we really don't know yet what is ordered exactly, and how much will it cost). However this should have been said months ago by both countries to France, an ally of them, and the only other Western country with a decent military that has actually territory and citizens in the region.
Philosophically, France supports Taiwan's independence of course, but if a war happened now, would we even want to participate with such allies ?
China has announced that Australian territory is now fair game for nuclear strikes, I wonder how Australian people will take this.
Mr Moriarty said he had thought more about the issue over last 12 months and had a number of discussions with senior officers about how to proceed if the project to build the 12 Attack Class submarines falls through.
“It became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack class program, over the last 15, 12 months,” he said.
“So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to do if you’re unable to proceed.”
However, Mr Moriarty said no decision had been made and the government was committed to the project with French submarine company, Naval Group.
Kiwirob wrote:How is this stablising the region? It's just adding to the existing arms race. The Aussies probably won't receive there first boat until sometime in the 2030's, a lot can change between now and then.
ThePointblank wrote:Aesma wrote:Mortyman wrote:This could have been handled much better by the US and especially Australia. France has every right to be angry. France also is a major player in the Indo Pacific area and it would be wise of the US and Australia to have good relations with France . This was not helpful.
I think from France's POV this is the main point. Even the US admits that when they say they told France in advance, they mean they called the Elysée palace a couple hours before the announcement !
If Australia changed its geopolitical stance and instead of going with relatively neutral France wants to escalate things with an alliance with the US, then everyone will admit that changing the order makes sense (although we really don't know yet what is ordered exactly, and how much will it cost). However this should have been said months ago by both countries to France, an ally of them, and the only other Western country with a decent military that has actually territory and citizens in the region.
Philosophically, France supports Taiwan's independence of course, but if a war happened now, would we even want to participate with such allies ?
China has announced that Australian territory is now fair game for nuclear strikes, I wonder how Australian people will take this.
The French should have seen this coming; there were signals from Australia indicating that they wanted out of the deal since at least June:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaki ... 0c3d6291d3Mr Moriarty said he had thought more about the issue over last 12 months and had a number of discussions with senior officers about how to proceed if the project to build the 12 Attack Class submarines falls through.
“It became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack class program, over the last 15, 12 months,” he said.
“So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to do if you’re unable to proceed.”
However, Mr Moriarty said no decision had been made and the government was committed to the project with French submarine company, Naval Group.
This after in April, the Australian government refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands about providing a promise to the delivery schedule and pricing:
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ne ... 513-p57rid
With the previously revised schedule for the delivery of the now cancelled Attack class submarines, the earliest delivery date possible was in 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s.
It's clear that the Australians are moving towards their contingency plan towards a US/UK nuclear design because they've reached their limits to the lack of progress with the French.
ThePointblank wrote:The French should have seen this coming; there were signals from Australia indicating that they wanted out of the deal since at least June:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaki ... 0c3d6291d3Mr Moriarty said he had thought more about the issue over last 12 months and had a number of discussions with senior officers about how to proceed if the project to build the 12 Attack Class submarines falls through.
“It became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack class program, over the last 15, 12 months,” he said.
“So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to do if you’re unable to proceed.”
However, Mr Moriarty said no decision had been made and the government was committed to the project with French submarine company, Naval Group.
This after in April, the Australian government refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands about providing a promise to the delivery schedule and pricing:
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ne ... 513-p57rid
With the previously revised schedule for the delivery of the now cancelled Attack class submarines, the earliest delivery date possible was in 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s.
It's clear that the Australians are moving towards their contingency plan towards a US/UK nuclear design because they've reached their limits to the lack of progress with the French.
Mortyman wrote:stabilize the region ??
Laughable
i understand Australia and other countries concern about China in the region, but this will not stabilize the region. That is just a hopelesly naive thing to say.
johns624 wrote:Just a few points...
1. Maybe this is "destabilizing", but not in the way that most assume. China keeps building their military, no matter what other countries do, or don't do. It's destabilizing because China is getting pushback, which they didn't expect.
2. So many posters are so "anti-US" that the UK is almost totally ignored here. Yet, the UK is an equal member in the treaty and it seems likely that the Aussie SSNs will be British designs. Of course, that matters naught to those who hate the US.
pune wrote:Another point which somebody made about history, U.S. has backstabbed its own allies number of times especially when they see them as competitor. After destroying Japan via the two nukes (WWII), they used same/similar Marshall plan but when Japan started becoming big, it slapped sanctions against it and did plaza accord. Both the famed Japanese navy and its mercantile arm which were famous world-over was forced to become a mere shadow of itself. China saw the opportunity and the U.S. having tasted how cheaper imports stabilized their economy didn't want that to end. This actually lead China to grow. Why do we all forget that? The Americans also did know when the Chinese started expanding the mercantile fleet, but the U.S. slept on the wheel. Shared by none other than an American mercantile officer. https://www.andrewerickson.com/2021/07/ ... the-world/
Think have shared the long-read I shared before as well. Either way you look at it, as the popular saying goes, 'there are no free lunches', America realized but perhaps a bit too late. And now trying all these things, which is fuelling more chaos rather than anything else. None of the countries seem to have anything in common with each other than the fact that they hate China, and that isn't good enough for any sort of equal-unequal partnership.
marcelh wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Aesma wrote:
I think from France's POV this is the main point. Even the US admits that when they say they told France in advance, they mean they called the Elysée palace a couple hours before the announcement !
If Australia changed its geopolitical stance and instead of going with relatively neutral France wants to escalate things with an alliance with the US, then everyone will admit that changing the order makes sense (although we really don't know yet what is ordered exactly, and how much will it cost). However this should have been said months ago by both countries to France, an ally of them, and the only other Western country with a decent military that has actually territory and citizens in the region.
Philosophically, France supports Taiwan's independence of course, but if a war happened now, would we even want to participate with such allies ?
China has announced that Australian territory is now fair game for nuclear strikes, I wonder how Australian people will take this.
The French should have seen this coming; there were signals from Australia indicating that they wanted out of the deal since at least June:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaki ... 0c3d6291d3Mr Moriarty said he had thought more about the issue over last 12 months and had a number of discussions with senior officers about how to proceed if the project to build the 12 Attack Class submarines falls through.
“It became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack class program, over the last 15, 12 months,” he said.
“So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to do if you’re unable to proceed.”
However, Mr Moriarty said no decision had been made and the government was committed to the project with French submarine company, Naval Group.
This after in April, the Australian government refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands about providing a promise to the delivery schedule and pricing:
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ne ... 513-p57rid
With the previously revised schedule for the delivery of the now cancelled Attack class submarines, the earliest delivery date possible was in 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s.
It's clear that the Australians are moving towards their contingency plan towards a US/UK nuclear design because they've reached their limits to the lack of progress with the French.
IMHO the Australians were just creating an excuse to dump their contract, knowing a deal with US/UK was just around the corner. This kind of deals aren’t made overnight and you have to find some legal loopholes to get out of it.
The way it took the French by surprise and their action shows this wasn’t a contract on the verge of cancellation.