'"Major International Development" 7am tomorrow. - Nuclear Subs and AUKUS

[Malifice]

Holy s**t.

We're buying nuclear subs.

This is huge. And scary AF.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Massive news and I’m not sure I like the idea of nuclear submarines in Australia. I presume we would supply our own uranium. If Aus, USA & UK are all part of this, I wonder why Canada, Sth Africa and India aren’t?

Australia, the US and UK to announce landmark new defence pact

Sources confirmed the US would help Australia develop a nuclear submarine capability, which could result in Australia dumping its $90 billion submarine deal with France.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Taylor]

Can we even service nuclear subs without the capacity to refine nuclear material?

Nuclear subs are mobile nuclear weapon platforms... we don't have nuclear weapons.

Maybe we will

Not sure how I feel about that

 

[Malifice]

Can we even service nuclear subs without the capacity to refine nuclear material?

Nuclear subs are mobile nuclear weapon platforms... we don't have nuclear weapons.

Maybe we will

Not sure how I feel about that

Just because they're nuclear powered doesn't mean they're nuclear armed.

But we're now getting the second most powerful warships (after nuclear powered aircraft carriers) for our fleet.

This is massive.

 

[Taylor]

Just because they're nuclear powered doesn't mean they're nuclear armed.

But we're now getting the second most powerful warships (after nuclear powered aircraft carriers) for our fleet.

This is massive.

You're right that they don't need to be nuclear armed.

What does the treaty say about nuclear weapons under the command of existing nuclear power nation officers on board non nuclear power nation ships?

 

[Malifice]

You're right that they don't need to be nuclear armed.

What does the treaty say about nuclear weapons under the command of existing nuclear power nation officers on board non nuclear power nation ships?

We wouldnt base nukes here for others. It makes zero sense, and just makes us a target which is silly considering it's unnecessary as our allies have ICBMs with global reach.

 

[Taylor]

We wouldnt base nukes here for others. It makes zero sense, and just makes us a target which is silly considering it's unnecessary as our allies have ICBMs with global reach.

Can Australia depend on US and other allied intervention should Australia come under attack?

Will India leap to our defence with a nuclear retaliation?

Or will everyone keep their head down?

 

[Deaneus!]

This doesn't seem to be getting any play in international media that I can see.

is now

Biden Announces Defense Deal With Australia in a Bid to Counter China (Published 2021)

President Biden said the United States and Britain would help Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines, adding to the Western presence in the region.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Malifice]

Can Australia depend on US and other allied intervention should Australia come under attack?

Will India leap to our defence with a nuclear retaliation?

Or will everyone keep their head down?

Yes to the first question.

No to the other two questions.

 

[Donakebab]

Can Australia depend on US and other allied intervention should Australia come under attack?

Will India leap to our defence with a nuclear retaliation?

Or will everyone keep their head down?

If any attack on Australia requires nuclear retaliation large portions of the US/UK/China/Russia/etc are likely smouldering ruins already and the human race is on the verge of extinction.

 

[Taylor]

If any attack on Australia requires nuclear retaliation large portions of the US/UK/China/Russia/etc are likely smouldering ruins already and the human race is on the verge of extinction.

The USA has fought it's wars in other people's countries for a while now, I don't think it will be as likely to be in Australia if we can deploy nuclear weapons against waves of armour and we are less likely to be attacked if we have the capacity to retaliate.

I'm not so sure we will get more than very serious and scathing words in our defense out of Washington DC.

 

[Malifice]

I'm not so sure we will get more than very serious and scathing words in our defense out of Washington DC.

I assure yoh the yanks would not sit back and let China just invade us.

Leaving aside it removes their only major ally in the region, would have them a global laughing stock and embolden China and Russia further, it would also involve them repudiating several major military pacts (CANZUK, AUKUS, 5 eyes etc), and leaving a 100 year old ally on its own.

The long term consequences of failing to intervene would be even worse than a full scale military conflict with China.

 

[Taylor]

I assure yoh the yanks would not sit back and let China just invade us.

Leaving aside it removes their only major ally in the region, would have them a global laughing stock and embolden China and Russia further, it would also involve them repudiating several major military pacts (CANZUK, AUKUS, 5 eyes etc), and leaving a 100 year old ally on its own.

They'll leave their own in a war zone who are trying to get out and then say they got out everyone who wanted to get out.

Where is the line between that and committing US troops to die for something that isn't their conflict?

I think we would need to false flag a Chinese attack on US soil and they would be here in a flash to fight their revenge war on Australian soil. I don't think they would be showing up to defend us, just like I think they will leave Taiwan to their fate if China made a serious move to occupy and control it.

 

[Malifice]

They'll leave their own in a war zone who are trying to get out and then say they got out everyone who wanted to get out.

Where is the line between that and committing US troops to die for something that isn't their conflict?

I think we would need to false flag a Chinese attack on US soil and they would be here in a flash to fight their revenge war on Australian soil. I don't think they would be showing up to defend us, just like I think they will leave Taiwan to their fate if China made a serious move to occupy and control it.

Afghanistan was about pipelines to the Caspian. At the end of the day it became too pricey to maintain the occupation as opposed to leaving and striking a deal with the Taliban.

China invading Australia is a completely different kettle of fish. There is literally zero chance the Yanks wouldn't declare war in response and fully commit to repelling any invaders.

China's blue water Navy is no match for the USAs. China's navy would be destroyed within weeks, and they'd be simply unable to sustain any troops they may have actually landed on the mainland here.

Its simply not going to happen. China aren't going to risk all their gains by confronting the States.

 

[Taylor]

Afghanistan was about pipelines to the Caspian. At the end of the day it became too pricey to maintain the occupation as opposed to leaving and striking a deal with the Taliban.

China invading Australia is a completely different kettle of fish. There is literally zero chance the Yanks wouldn't declare war in response and fully commit to repelling any invaders.

China's blue water Navy is no match for the USAs. China's navy would be destroyed within weeks, and they'd be simply unable to sustain any troops they may have actually landed on the mainland here.

Its simply not going to happen. China aren't going to risk all their gains by confronting the States.

What Chinese action against Australian interests reach the threshold of US involvement?

 

[Malifice]

What Chinese action against Australian interests reach the threshold of US involvement?

We're already cooperating with America closely re freedom of navigation in the SC Sea and in response to Chinese cyberwarfare, and the US rely on our DSD and their own bases here to monitor the Chinese closely.

An attack on Australia would be treated much the same as an attack on the USA.

For all their posturing and cyber and economic attacks, China would be flat out stupid to actually attack either nation.

Japan tried it once remember, also while they were on the rise. It didn't exactly work out well for them.

The biggest threat at the moment is a miscalculation or mistake in heightened tensions. A warning shot or show of force that sinks an opposing naval vessel or is misconstrued as a preemtive strike.

Its also only a matter of time with Taiwan. China will most likely continue economic, IT and political influence over the country, seeking to destabilise it and get a pro unification (or pro independence) movement to flourish as a false flag to militarily intervene.

They won't risk sending troops unless they're sure the Yanks won't intervene. It's literally the only thing stopping them at the moment.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

You're forgetting the economic considerations.
All sentimentality and global political standing aside, the simple fact is that if China took control of Australia (and by extension, the resources), the USA is finished as an economic global power anyway. China in control of Australia would be like playing Monopoly against someone who has hotels built on everything from The Strand to Mayfair and you hoping owning all the railroads is going to keep you afloat.

An invasion would require the Chinese loading up a lot of surface ships with men and equipment (forget about trying to keep it a secret), then crossing over 3000nm over 10 days at sea to land them in Darwin. Perhaps a parachute drop to capture the ports first.
Then, if all goes well, you have Darwin.. and your next job is to transport all the stuff that survived the crossing another few thousand km South and East over crappy single lane highways with only the fuel you landed with you.

Neither one has any great chance of success. This isn't the Middle East, where you can simply ship soldiers over and land them without interference.

 

[Taylor]

We're already cooperating with America closely re freedom of navigation in the SC Sea and in response to Chinese cyberwarfare, and the US rely on our DSD and their own bases here to monitor the Chinese closely.

An attack on Australia would be treated much the same as an attack on the USA.

For all their posturing and cyber and economic attacks, China would be flat out stupid to actually attack either nation.

Japan tried it once remember, also while they were on the rise. It didn't exactly work out well for them.

The biggest threat at the moment is a miscalculation or mistake in heightened tensions. A warning shot or show of force that sinks an opposing naval vessel or is misconstrued as a preemtive strike.

Its also only a matter of time with Taiwan. China will most likely continue economic, IT and political influence over the country, seeking to destabilise it and get a pro unification (or pro independence) movement to flourish as a false flag to militarily intervene.

They won't risk sending troops unless they're sure the Yanks won't intervene. It's literally the only thing stopping them at the moment.

The point I was alluding to was that China is already attacking both the US and Australia causing actual material harm economically to various sectors of our economy.

When does that warrant reply? Because we don't have the muscle to enforce anything with them and I don't think the US will do anything to assist us in that.

 

[madmug]

The point I was alluding to was that China is already attacking both the US and Australia causing actual material harm economically to various sectors of our economy.

When does that warrant reply? Because we don't have the muscle to enforce anything with them and I don't think the US will do anything to assist us in that.

I think the CCP are doing a good enough job of destroying their own economy at the moment.

Its pointless us adding any fuel to that fire.

The CCP will be pissed off about this. So too are the French!!!

 

[Taylor]

I think the CCP are doing a good enough job of destroying their own economy at the moment.

Its pointless us adding any fuel to that fire.

The CCP will be pissed off about this. So too are the French!!!

If there was a deep sea joint base designed to service the submarine fleet of all three nations on the Pacific coast somewhere, so there is almost always one around, then it would really get them upset.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Lots to unpack.

First of many queries is how are we going to repair relations with the french? Yes, the Naval Group deal was a poor value option that saw us paying nuclear sub prices for conventional submarine capabilities however, Australia has culpability in knowingly entering a deal with France for a project with enormous foreseeable risk attached. We asked the french to do an impossible task and then held them accountable for it not being done. Very easy to understand the sheer outrage in Paris at the moment.

I wonder if there was any chance to salvage the deal by simply adopting the Barracuda class, perhaps with an alternative American reactor? On the whole, it's difficult to see a better modern nuclear submarine for Australia than the Barracuda as it is significantly smaller than the Virginia and Astute class alternatives with a smaller complement on board.

 

[QuietB]

Posting this theory as it's blue-ticked





Seems a bit uninteresting for all the hubbub though?

Agree. I got my wife a new car this week - you don’t see me holding a press conference though

 

[QuietB]

Why would the UK government be involved in this announcement?

Brexit - they need new friends

 

[Roobs321]

It's pretty big. Pandemics, elections and disasters aside, in terms of geopolitics, this feels bigger than the Kabul withdrawal and Taliban recapture, more akin to Trump's Soleiman assassination flashpoint. We've pursued a path and things will change.

The whispers I've heard of this apparently being planned for 18 months is most intriguing to me. Maybe from that time Dutton was snapped with Ivanka and caught Covid? Would also provide a new layer to China's recent trade aggressions, maybe they caught wind of this and were pissed, thereby making the announcement less controversial than it might have been.

The absence of Canada and NZ raises the eyebrow a little, but NZ foreign policy has really tried to stay the line of not choosing, and is anti-nuclear. It doesn't really change the existing treaties much when you think about it (and would be stupid to do so), except for some talk of it supplanting ANZUS. More about furthering regional pivot capabilities.

China, France and NZ all with a bit of attitude right now in our direction. More sympathy for ASEAN members like Indonesia understandably perturbed by lacking consultation, increasing crowding and mixed about where this is all heading and their constrained place in it.

It does make Australia feel a little less safe than ten years ago. We've committed and put a target on our back, and could understand some distrust among our neighbors right now.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Just because they're nuclear powered doesn't mean they're nuclear armed.

I think that distinction has been lost in a lot of the coverage.