Thoughts on Australia as a nuclear power?

[Jello_B]

what’s the Chinese heritage population of Australia compared to US heritage? Are we just denying the inevitable? And British born Aussies who still have higher loyalty to the UK (the ones who stuffed the republic vote) will all be dead before these subs get delivered

Nothing to do with heritage, more to do with democratic values. I’d expect that most of the people from China (or anywhere really) that have either here enjoy the benefits of our political system, or are at least ambivalent to it. Can’t imagine too many Chinese-Australians laying out the welcome mate for Xi and his cronies.

 

[Power Raid]

You are exactly right.

Which begs the question what exactly is the US and Great Britain gaining from this deal in the short term bearing in mind that
any nuclear propulsion secrets that Australia is likely to get from this deal is a decade or more away and the strategic value of the boats that will be built using that technology is 20-30 years away?

The answer of course relates to the position of the continent of Australia in relation to those two countries and to their immediate Chinese adversary as well as the political influence of adding our name to their cause in stopping the expansion of the Chinese navy further east into the Pacific. And that is something that the US in particular will be keen to exploit immediately.

And my point is that while top secret nuclear propulsion secrets from the US/UK are indeed valuable assets, they are in no way comparable to the asset value of the continent of Australia and its people and the relative security and independence that comes from avoiding forthright military hostility with China.

So the question then becomes why would the Morrison Government trade away the strategic position of Australia to the distant and fading colonial powers of the United States and Great Britain on a whim?

The only sensible answer must be political.

what if Australians developed the nuclear technology but had to complete design testing in Seattle and then commercialise in Canada, Ohio and Illinois before bringing this "home"?

 

[Schneebly11]

what’s the Chinese heritage population of Australia compared to US heritage? Are we just denying the inevitable? And British born Aussies who still have higher loyalty to the UK (the ones who stuffed the republic vote) will all be dead before these subs get delivered

In 1942 something like 0.04% of the Australian population had Japanese heritage.

Last census (numbers would’ve increased now) showed Sydney and Melbourne 25-30% Asian ancestry, the other cities 15-18%. Something like 20% of doctors are Asian background. Chinese was the highest non Anglo ancestry on the last census, Mandarin the highest non English language spoken.

Median age for UK born was 57, China is 34.

On one hand there’s a claim that Australia, in the streets, in the communities, in society could be considered a Eurasian or Australiasian society. Definitely in the middle class it is. However look at parliament, institutions, the media. All dominated by European, and majority Anglo Celtic. Federal Cabinet - Morrison, Joyce, Dutton, Hunt, Andrews, Taylor, Cash, Porter, Birmingham. Anglo-Celtic Australians only makeup 50% of the population but have made up 100% of PMs, in fact if Albo got in he’d be the first non Anglo PM.

During WW2 over 90% of Australians were Anglo Celtic. Now 1/4 to a 1/3rd in some places is Asian. We’re living in a radically different country, but the foreign policy is resembling a world of the early 20th century, the early 19th century at times it seems.

 

[Boston tiger]

You are exactly right.

Which begs the question what exactly is the US and Great Britain gaining from this deal in the short term bearing in mind that
any nuclear propulsion secrets that Australia is likely to get from this deal is a decade or more away and the strategic value of the boats that will be built using that technology is 20-30 years away?

The answer of course relates to the position of the continent of Australia in relation to those two countries and to their immediate Chinese adversary as well as the political influence of adding our name to their cause in stopping the expansion of the Chinese navy further east into the Pacific. And that is something that the US in particular will be keen to exploit immediately.

And my point is that while top secret nuclear propulsion secrets from the US/UK are indeed valuable assets, they are in no way comparable to the asset value of the continent of Australia and its people and the relative security and independence that comes from avoiding forthright military hostility with China.

So the question then becomes why would the Morrison Government trade away the strategic position of Australia to the distant and fading colonial powers of the United States and Great Britain on a whim?

The only sensible answer must be political.

I think it’s just a reality check for China. If you are a stinking communist regime then your best bet is to go about things quietly and politely.

Defence Budget
USA $753.5 billion.
China $252 billion

 

[Pie eyed]

Yet you are so enlightened & dont pay anything .... & have no idea what you miss out on, because its inferior in your informed opinion, complete with get out clause aka Rupert.
No wonder 'why do ....'

You assume that I don't get Fox just because I don't pay for Fox?

The idiot is the person who assumes because you pay you get a superior product.

You pay to to become stupider.

Did you know some people get paid to watch Fox?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Kroeger, Bolt, and Sheridan are leading the charge now that France is an unreliable ally, childish, and to blame for this situation

if this is the approach the govt will take to mending french relations, we are ****ed for the EU trade deal.

On that, the EU Commission President is indicating support for the french, and the french have already started lobbying the other members to slow walk any further work on the agreement

and biden has thrown us under the bus, saying it was our job and not his to call the French in advance

 

[Gough]

Kroeger, Bolt, and Sheridan are leading the charge now that France is an unreliable ally, childish, and to blame for this situation

if this is the approach the govt will take to mending french relations, we are f’ed for the EU trade deal.

On that, the EU Commission President is indicating support for the french, and the french have already started lobbying the other members to slow walk any further work on the agreement

and biden has thrown us under the bus, saying it was our job and not his to call the French in advance

The Liberal Party doesn't realise there's a world outside of Australia. It doesn't have Murdoch running a protection racket there for them either.

 

[Gough]

CAP 26 in Glasgow could be fun, our name is rightfully mud globally because of our pitiful environmental efforts and it might be sorely tempting for the French to see to it that the boot is sunk in a little more harshly than we might have expected. Hell I'd be applauding them if they did, a whopping great tariff on every Australian imported into Europe might actually get our arse into gear on climate.

 

[Power Raid]

Kroeger, Bolt, and Sheridan are leading the charge now that France is an unreliable ally, childish, and to blame for this situation

if this is the approach the govt will take to mending french relations, we are f’ed for the EU trade deal.

On that, the EU Commission President is indicating support for the french, and the french have already started lobbying the other members to slow walk any further work on the agreement

and biden has thrown us under the bus, saying it was our job and not his to call the French in advance

would you advocate continuing a $90B submarine program that had no propulsion system and would require the submarines being towed out to sea?

 

[Gough]

would you advocate continuing a $90B submarine program that had no propulsion system and would require the submarines being towed out to sea?

If they're that useless, wtf did we sign a contract to build them in the first place?

 

[Sttew]

would you advocate continuing a $90B submarine program that had no propulsion system and would require the submarines being towed out to sea?

Not to mention, a program that was hopelessly behind schedule

 

[Sttew]

Kroeger, Bolt, and Sheridan are leading the charge now that France is an unreliable ally, childish, and to blame for this situation

if this is the approach the govt will take to mending french relations, we are f’ed for the EU trade deal.

On that, the EU Commission President is indicating support for the french, and the french have already started lobbying the other members to slow walk any further work on the agreement

The French must be extremely naïve if they couldn't see and appreciate the consequences of their submarine program falling beyond schedule, having capability issues, and costs blowing out of control. Consider too that in April Australia refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine program. And in June Australia let France know it had grave reservations about the capability of the French program, prompting Macron to ask if Australia was pulling out. So to say France was blindsided is wrong. They can be disappointed but bot surprised.

Agree this will * the Australia EU trade deal, but it will blow over. France is not everyone's cup of tea in the EU

 

[Sttew]

If they're that useless, wtf did we sign a contract to build them in the first place?

Valid question

 

[Ned_Flanders]

would you advocate continuing a $90B submarine program that had no propulsion system and would require the submarines being towed out to sea?

I would advocate if we are going to terminate a contract we dont do it via the media

I would advocate giving the party a chance to rebid based upon nuclear technology

I would NOT explicitly exclude them from the defence coordination part of the agreement, esp when they have more troops and vessels in the pacific than the British do

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The French must be extremely naïve if they couldn't see and appreciate the consequences of their submarine program falling beyond schedule, having capability issues, and costs blowing out of control. Consider too that in April Australia refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine program. And in June Australia let France know it had grave reservations about the capability of the French program, prompting Macron to ask if Australia was pulling out. So to say France was blindsided is wrong. They can be disappointed but bot surprised.

Agree this will fu** the Australia EU trade deal, but it will blow over. France is not everyone's cup of tea in the EU

our govt calling them childish and saying its nothing isnt helping matters

 

[Baltimore Jack]

would you advocate continuing a $90B submarine program that had no propulsion system and would require the submarines being towed out to sea?

But that is what the Aus specs called for, so the French tendered on that basis

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not to mention, a program that was hopelessly behind schedule

this is one q i do have

reading some of the US reports on this, they are saying that their production lines will benefit by being able to divert resources to the australian jobs while the USA is struggling to crew its new vessels. Putting aside if this is true or not (re: USA demand), they seem to think the boats are being built there - not in adelaide.

one of the biggest issues delaying this program, and it was similar with the Collins, was our insistence on how much has to be built in Australia.

TBH, to get this right I would rather take it off the shelf in the USA and contribute nothing - if we know we get a fit for purpose sub on time and on budget

if this because another piece where we have to reinvent everything so we can build it, I have massive concerns on timeframe and budget

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Sttew]

our govt calling them childish and saying its nothing isnt helping matters

Agree, but diplomatically speaking Australia has to tough this out and not show any signs of weakness, hence the colourful language.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Agree, but diplomatically speaking Australia has to tough this out and not show any signs of weakness, hence the colourful language.

the same approach that has us talking about fighting a war in Taiwan?

 

[QuietB]

would you advocate continuing a $90B submarine program that had no propulsion system and would require the submarines being towed out to sea?

It had no propulsion system because Australia insisted it could not be nuclear.

Stop speaking s**t.

 

[Sttew]

It had no propulsion system because Australia insisted it could not be nuclear.

Stop speaking sh*t.

And why did Australia insist "it could not be nuclear"? Because Australia does not have a domestic nuclear capability. However, the UK/USA alliance means the nuclear work is all carried out in the United States or the United Kingdom, and the rest can be done here. That was not an option available with the French.

 

[Gough]

And why did Australia insist "it could not be nuclear"? Because Australia does not have a domestic nuclear capability. However, the UK/USA alliance means the nuclear work is all carried out in the United States or the United Kingdom, and the rest can be done here. That was not an option available with the French.

One of the chief attractions we were told of the French submarines was that they could be largely built in Australia, you could almost be forgiven for thinking all those billions spent was purely about sandbagging South Australian seats because clearly that's not the case anymore.

 

[Sttew]

One of the chief attractions we were told of the French submarines was that they could be largely built in Australia, you could almost be forgiven for thinking all those billions spent was purely about sandbagging South Australian seats because clearly that's not the case anymore.

It's difficult to fathom why we went with the French deal. It sounds like there were reservations from the outset:

"The contract with France was written with several built-in escape clauses. Although the details remain secret, the Australian National Audit Office said the agreement “contains rights, remedies and incentives, including protections, ‘control gates’ in the form of mandated system reviews based on defined exit and entry criteria, and establishes contractual off-ramps”.

The ABC reported in 2019 that the confidential overarching contract – the strategic partnering agreement – would see Australia pay about $400m if it pulled out after the design was completed but before a submarine was completed."

‘Right decision’ to scrap French submarines but South Australian jobs will be lost

Senator Rex Patrick says there were doubts over the Shortfin Barracuda but ‘it’s a huge jump’ to building a nuclear submarine

www.theguardian.com

 

[QuietB]

And why did Australia insist "it could not be nuclear"? Because Australia does not have a domestic nuclear capability. However, the UK/USA alliance means the nuclear work is all carried out in the United States or the United Kingdom, and the rest can be done here. That was not an option available with the French.

Why was that not an "option available with the French"?

Sounds like you made that up