Honestly I'm surprised that Australia didn't go with nuclear submarines earlier. As an island nation, naval strenth needs to take top priority. It has an incredibly long coastline, much of which is sparsely populated, particularly in the north where any attack would be reasonably expected to come from, with few bases in the area to support fleet operations (to my knowledge there are no naval depots between Perth and Darwin with about 2500 miles of coastline in between). All potential adversaries are a long distance away and Australia has no overseas naval bases at which to refuel. Critically, all the major chokepoints that a potential adversary would need to sail through are very far from Australia, with it's territorial waters being extremely open. It's really a perfect use case for nuclear attack subs.
Australia is not a nuclear nation and as such, is normally not supposed to be able to buy nuclear devices of any sort. Which is why they initially bought French submarines that are nuclear but asked them to be retrofitted for standard propulsion.
What the US and the UK did here is a breach of a worldwide agreement by nuclear powers to not supply non nuclear ones in order to restrict nuclear proliferation. Which is one reason the French are pissed - the US took away their contract by breaking a rules the French had stuck to.
I don't see anything in NPT that forbids the US and UK from supplying nuclear propulsion to Australia. They are not supplying nuclear warheads.
The reason the French are pissed are strictly commercial. But that is on Naval Group. As soon as the deal was struck between Australia and Naval Group, Naval Group were changing the terms, and were years behind on some of the earliest deliveries. Had the project been going well, Australia would not have spent political capital seeking this new deal.
It may be convenient to blame the French (isn't it always?) and indeed the deal was not going smoothly, but these are hugely political decisions and I think a key to what has happened is American pressure on Australia.
The French are not only 'pissed off' for commercial reasons. The deal was part of a long term strategy of France in the region, with India and Australia being the two main partners, so this has serious consequences for them beyond a simple arms sale.
Now, on the other hand, two good questions are whether the Australian ever discussed the possibility of France supplying nuclear-powered submarines instead of conventional ones, and whether France would have accepted. I don't know the answer to either though I'm doubtful about the latter and that may be an objective and very good reason for Australia to switch.
French nuclear deterrent is entirely developed in house, whearas the UK one is US power plant, warheads and missiles with British naval architecture. Maybe the French didn’t give them nuclear tech for security reasons, same way no-one else is allowed to buy America’s top end stuff.
> I don't see anything in NPT that forbids the US and UK from supplying nuclear propulsion to Australia.
And yet it's a tacit agreement among nuclear nations to not sell military nuclear equipment to non-nuclear nations (ie who don't have at least a civilian program).
Which is why North Korea for ex has never been able to buy nuclear equipment from China or Russia. So far, because now that the US has decided breaking the rule for a short term financial gain was worth it, other's will decide that they might as well help their own allies too with a few reactors.
North Korea's Yongbon Nuclear Reactor was supplied by the Soviet Union. Russia came very close to selling North Korea a 200 MW reactor in the early 90s but the deal fell through when North Korea refused to pay. In 1994, the United States agreed to build 2 1000 MW reactors in North Korea as part of the Agreed Framework, which was only suspended after North Korea withdrew from the NPT.
There is not nor has there ever been any prohibition on providing nuclear technology and equipment to non-nuclear weapons states. In this particular case, France offered to sell Australia nuclear submarines back in 2016 and Australia decided against it, but one of their reasons for going with the French proposal was that the submarines could be converted to nuclear in the future.
North Korea can't buy nuclear equipment from those countries because it has withdrawn from the NPT entirely, and it doesn't have a safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
Follow the money. Christopher Pyne brokered this $50Bn deal to get re-elected (some boatbuilding would happen in SA) which blew out to $90Bn and rising.
Pyne immediately retired (got his pollie-perks-for-life golden ticket stamped) and then immediately became "employed" as a consult with the people profiting massively from this twisted deal against the public interest.
Pyne followed the same slimy playbook as Andrew Robb (4) who sneakily slipped the 99-year Darwin Port dodgy deal across the line, and then he got a free $880k "job" with them the day he left parliament shortly thereafter.
Borderline treasonous behavior is rife with our political elite (both sides stink badly)
>The reason the French are pissed are strictly commercial.
No, they're not. The sub deal with Australia was just part of a broader Pacific strategy to which Australia was central. Now that Australia sent the signal that it was to be a plugin in the US foreign policy rather than a country of its own, the entire strategy is dead and needs to be reworked. It's a major setback. It coming from the Nth sabotage of the French defense industry by the US is just the cherry on the top.
What does a "nuclear nation" mean here? Note that Australia has a small (20MW) nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. 32 countries have commercial power reactors, including the likes of Slovenia and Armenia. Are they "nuclear nations" or not?
Brazil has multiple civilian nuclear reactors in operations. Australia has no significant nuclear expertise. France would probably have preferred selling nuclear submarines because it would have saved on retrofitting cost.
I was under the impression that nuclear proliferation applies to nuclear weapons, not to nuclear power. In fact if you look at the list, most countries using civil nuclear power do not have nukes [1]. I assumed Australia was ideologically opposed to nuclear and I understand the French modified their subs to accomodate the Australians, not to not violate a proliferation treaty.
This isn't part of the NPT - this is a tacit agreement that nuclear nations don't sell nuclear (or nuclear powered) weapons to non nuclear nations. This is why North Korea never managed to buy nuclear stuff from its Chinese ally. So far.
What there has been is the NPT's Article I prohibition on the provision of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices to non-weapons-states (which are all but the 5 weapons states, USA, Russia, France, UK, China). It also prohibits assistance / inducement in developing weapons.
The "(or nuclear powered)" bit has never been a thing.
There is also the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is a group of nuclear-technology-exporting countries that agree not to export to NPT non-weapons-states a much longer list of dual-use nuclear technologies, unless IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreements are in place. Australia is a member of the NSG, and has safeguards agreements with the IAEA.
“Nuclear attack sub” refers to a fast attack submarine with nuclear power, not a “boomer” that carries sub launched ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.
“Fast attack” subs hunt other subs, convoys, ships, etc. they are not strategic weapons.
We had an enrichment program from 65 to 84, but only on a small scale. At a similar time we were also only a week or two away from having nuclear warheads.
As a nation the pivot to having nuclear weapons is quite straight forward. The technology and resources are available, and the infrastructure has been researched and applied at smaller scales in the past. We're also quite invested in hypersonic projectiles, so it wouldn't take a whole lot to arm a formidable arsenal, the highest cost being political capital.
The implications as far as non-proliferation go are potentially quite grave [1]. It might be seen as the US opening the floodgate on the export of weapon-grade uranium outside of international oversight.
Correct.
The Alligators, spiders, snakes and harsh environment with no good roads and a huge distance between there and any people doesn't make it an attractive place to land and then get bombed on by planes.
I can just imagine a few thousand Chinese troops rocking up to Geraldton after slogging all the way through the desert from somewhere near Broome. The disappointment would be palpable.
It's called a beachhead. Take Darwin, then you have a safe platform to threaten the rest.
However, I doubt anyone expects an invasion of the Australian mainland. Attacks on shipping are a more likely threat. Maybe naval support to Australian allies that are closer to China.
I think you misunderstand, it's where the attack comes from, not goes to. Unless Australia goes to war with Antarctica, every possible attack on Australia would be sailing approximately south towards it from a more northerly position. If you want to stop Chinese ships from sailing into Sydney, you must engage them north of Sydney, ideally a lot further north.
I thought New Zealand had declared itself a nuclear-free zone, which would mean Australian nuclear subs could not visit New Zealand ports nor pass through New Zealand waters.
This would be one reason why Australia might not want nuclear subs.
Australian nuclear subs will not be allowed into NZ waters, Jacinda Ardern was quite clear on that. However, there is no reason why they would want to enter NZ waters.
Some day these submarines may well enter NZ waters to protect and defend NZ. Its a small world, NZ can shut their eyes and hope all the bad things will just go away, but they wont.
In the event of an invasion or blockade the nuclear-free policy would be relaxed as needed.
It is incredibly difficult to imagine a scenario where, say, China launches a naval invasion or blockade of NZ but is not already at war with our allies. In the latter case subs would engage their navy long before they reach NZ waters.
Yep, the status quo holds. That said, Australia's defensive posture has always been oriented north towards Asia, not much reason for them to traverse NZ waters.
> in the north where any attack would be reasonably expected to come from,
There is no reasonable expectation of an attack on Australia. This is not about defense of Australian coasts, it's about strength projection towards South China See, Taiwan Straight and Pacific Ocean.
But you don't need the autonomy of a nuclear submarine to do that. You need them to reach the coasts of China. (And the official announcement speech isn't even hiding it)
Australia is party to the ANZUS treaty, so any attack on Australia would count as an attack on the US, same as with NATO. If you ask me, then it is not quite clear why Australia needs its own nuclear fleet, all of a sudden.
By that same logic, why does Australia, or any other nation allied with the US for that matter, even need its own armed forces?
Australia is a sovereign nation, not a client of the United States. It is free to engage in its own foreign policy and should logically want some safeguard in case its relationship with the US should ever sour.
Even if the relationship stays strong and the US makes defending Australia its top priority in a war, the US and its vast military might is on the other side of the planet - it would take many weeks to move ships to where they are needed. It is sensible for US allies to maintain forces dedicated to their own defense which are strong enough to hold out for the cavalry to arrive. A fleet of Australian nuclear subs may very well be the difference between America reinforcing a free Australia and America liberating an occupied Australia.
We also should not forget the four years most recently where the sitting US president was claiming NATO/UN/ANZUS/other military defence pacts to be a farse because the US wasn't deriving an immediate and obvious dollar value from them. To the point where he made statements alluding to those other countries finding themselves without military support if they didn't pay the US for protection. He literally tried to apply a mob protection racket via insinuation over international politics and treaties.
Any sane nation considering their own self defence and sovereignty would be looking to bolster their own position instead of relying solely on that sort of unreliable and borderline abusive relationship.
By that logic Australia would also need its own nukes, I mean the potential adversary is nuclear armed China, and nuclear submarines are most often used as launchers for missiles armed with nuclear warheads. The point being is that it is not quite clear where to draw the line.
What do you make of the last section of the original article?
Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, backed the new deal and said his initial response was "surprise".
"The irony is that when we chose the French-designed submarine a few years ago we actually took a nuclear-powered submarine and have been spending millions of dollars turning it into a diesel submarine."
That there were a lot of really good fel-cell powered, heck even really good diesel-electric, subs on the market. And that the how's and when's behind the decision to buy a nuclear sub, just to transform it into a diesel-electric one, would be really interesting to know...
They're looking to counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea in particular, as China has been acting aggressively diplomatically and economically towards Australia under Xi.
The advantage of nuclear subs over diesels is the long linger time while submersed, and the range.
So I think Australia is wanting to do a little force projection of their own.
It will be quite unfair to expect the US to shoulder a disproportionate burden in collective defence treaties (they already spend 3.7% of GDP on defence, compared to Australia's 2.1% or Germany's 1.6%).
Australia spending on these subs will add to the coalition's strength, with Asia heating up rapidly.
Which means sooner or later US is gonna say something like "hey, wouldn't it be nice if you also spent some cash on this mutual defense thing?". I guess it happened.
Might also have something to do with Biden publicly demonstrating that he's going to stop the fight, consequences be damned.
Reality is that AU needs nuclear subs for offensive deterrence againt PRC because AU has already sunk cost too much into US orbit that the only thing left is to double down.
PineGap, Geraldton, Exmouth communication hubs, US is absurdly dependent on AU facilities for Indo-Pac operations. Aforementioned facilities will 100% be targeted by PRC if US containment efforts become kinetic. Hence these subs to threaten PLAN at choke points.
It helps that AU is a steadfast historic US ally, bordering on sycophancy, but in Mearsheimer words on future PRC/US/AU dynamic, if AU picks PRC, they become US enemies. I would extend that to AU being neutral as well. US _NEEDS_ AU facilities for Indo-Pac operation the same way it needed ME oil pre-Shale. AU doesn't have a choice but to cooperate with US because “implications”.
So here we are. Overdue capabilities for AU, assuming aquisition doesn't fall through. At least 8 nuke subs that AU has even less experience building, which likely will overshoot planned delivery by 10+ years, and go massively over budget, of which 2-3 can be deployed at once. Worse case scenario, project goes nowhere, PRC gets the crown jewels of SSN technology via espionage while having shipyard designed to launch 2 nuke subs per year.
It seems our governments tried to walk a fine line for a while with China, because the trade dollars were so good. That's all a bit out the window now. They've slapped us (economically) a few times over the last couple of years but I don't think they can go too much further down that route - they still need a lot of the stuff we're digging out of the ground.
With little for Australia left to lose trade-wise, doubling down on the US relationship makes sense. We're so intertwined already, we may as well get any more benefits we can out of it. The more the US has sitting in Australia, the more it's in their interests for us to be safe and stable.
Pity about France but it seems that project was not going well anyway. If we're going to waste money we may as well get better kit out of it (eventually).
I like this idea from a purely environmental perspective (ignoring the strategic reasons, which I leave for others). It's about time we stopped that ridiculous plan to modify an already nuclear design for diesel-electric. Not to mention how poorly the delivery was performing. However small difference a nuclear submarine fleet would bring, we urgently need to wean ourselves off polluting energy and start being progressive again.
I'm cackling behind my desk here as I imagine some British bureaucrats gleefully hopping in their chairs as they drink tea with their pinkies up, round spectabled, shouting "well done chaps" to each other.
I'm sure people have said this countless time but here it is: Cold War mentality.
I'm from a small country. You would think that countries like us tend to have to pick a side but since a very young age, in our textbook, we're taught that the world is no longer the place it used to be and there are no such things as friends nor enemies.
Honestly all the propaganda from the US about Russia caring so much and always tries to undermine them and how their politics are fuelled by their policies toward "the enemy", whether that's China or the Middle East, sounds stupid to me.
Australia is the same, all they do is whining about China instead of, you know, build a stronger country.
Whining as in complaining about China having the better end of the deals that Australia itself signed. Well, stop being incompetent and look out for your OWN interests then.
Thanks for the alienating message I'm not surprised at all.
does it matter? I'm supposed to invent new terminologies? I'm not pro China. I'm just calling bullshit governments instead of addressing their economic policies that China takes advantage of, chooses to go the military route instead. The world no longer works that way.
If you don't like someone being so successful, do better than them, get the better end of the deal. Don't go to your gangster friend and whine like a loser.
And people have been protesting about thoses wars on the streets, in the media, films, tv,mc, newspapers, books and everywhere else you can think of for the last 20 years. I havent seen any protests against the opression of the Uighars in China at all. Unless you can point me to it?
Vietnam? What a wonderfully free and democratic nation you come from!
Why did you dodge the question of what is more damaging to the world? I mean you have the freedom to protest? yes. Have those wars not happened anyway? Wasn't it an elected government that started them? and millions died? What are you trying to say?
I won't talk about minorities in China, that is a separate issue and I won't pretend to know. Trade deals, military ramp-up, and wars, on the other hand, are relevant to inter-nation-al politics. I was contemplating bringing up immigrant camps and the war crimes in Afghanistan, but's they aren't really rellevant either and would drag me down to your level of discourse.
I didn't call you out, but since you just kept going, you do realise you were not making any argument and simply labeling? These are the same words used by CCP, you're from a communist country bla bla. You're representing the intellect of the Australian public very well.
You don't know about the treatment of minorities in China??? Don't they have the news in Vietnam? You know all about what the west does but strangely nothing about what China does. Shall we talk about Tiannenmen Square, are you allowed to?
I know about it as much as you do. If you're saying that knowing a subject is reading about it on the news, especially when it involves a country that is famous for lack of transparency, and a lot of the news can't be confirmed, then you and I are very knowledgable on a lot of subjects.
Scroll in this thead to find a comment of mine mocking CCP's Long March.
I consider it a contained issue of China and not high on the list of international interests. I also consider Australia's treatment of the indigenous that too, do you want to talk about that?
Let me make myself clear. Unlike you who reduce nations to a single thing and categorise them as good and evil, like a retard (China: lack of human rights, US: war mongering, UK: the Queen, Australia: Emus vs Roos), I understand that countries have good and bad and it's better to criticise their behaviors instead, and do it in a way that is relevant to the problem at hand.
The tension between China and Australia went way back before all the allegation of treatment to minorities. Unfair trade is the core of that. So I suggest addressing it, instead of partaking in the military tension leading up to cold war 2.0. It is a very childish thing to do if you value peace and collaboration, not just for the 2 countries but everyone else in the region who would be dragged into this show.
China has been known to bribe individuals and coerce them with stated ramifications to their families in China to steal secrets of other nations as well as sign deals that would be otherwise illogical.
Is this the “gangster” mentality you refer to?
Chinas economic rise has come through a generous allocation of an “emerging economy” status under many provisions at the WTO and other international organizations. Are you in favor of other countries kicking them out?
You speak as if China invented bribery and every other nation is some sort of angel?
Idk you can call that a cheater, gangster is like using violence and, you know, kill people, like blatantly, like in wars.
Like I said I don't do enemy, I don't look at a map of the world and see a country and say this is pure evil and set out to destroy them, kick them out of WTO or whatever. Because first of all that sounds ridiculous and second of all, I'm kind of not an angel myself.
No, i'm referring to your comment where you claim China is simply taking advantage of a loose system of government policy in negotiating a better deal for themselves in Australia which is simply not true. It is through deceit, fraud, and illegal practices such as the ones i have outlined above.
The point here is one that should not be of contest. Nations are part of international agreements on the basis of mutual trust and respect. It isn't a foregone conclusion as you lay out.
Other nations cannot simply continue accommodating favorable economic status to China when they establish an aircraft identification zone in international waters with the threat of surface to air missile batteries in place for those that choose to not recognize those claims.
The WTO and other international forums that China has used thus far to their advantage should reasonably be a lever that nations that feel wronged by their use of economic progress , converted to military posturing should have the freedom to resort to. That is simply the point.
If almost every country in Asia sees China as a threat, then it is most likely that it is actually a threat. And Xi Jinping is increasingly looking like a new Mao, which is bad news both abroad and domestically.
China is massively bigger than all of its Asian neighbours except India. That's a risk in itself as they may want to avoid becoming satellite states because of that. It's a bit like a small country next to the US...
The USA has its issues but it has great relations with its neighbours (minus Cuba), while on the other hand China's big neighbours all see China as a threat (except perhaps for Russia).
Seems to me it boils down to the CCP being a ruthless totalitarian regime headed by a dictator-for-life with an increasingly aggressive foreign policy (exhibit A: constant offensive cyberwarfare). Its neighbours can never be comfortable with that.
It understandibly doesnt make many headlines, but the Russians are hemoraging resources, technology and yes, even territory to keep the peace with China.
Remember that the area around Vladivostok was annexed by Russia from China... and that Russia had 'treaty ports' similar to Hongkong in China (most notably Tianjin, Harbin, and Dalian)
And China sees India as a threat... They have opposed interests and border issues inherited from the British (at a time when China was being cut piece by piece).
I don't think that there is more concern one way or the other beyond the FUD about China. There are a lot of unease in central and South America but the US have had time to impose a tight grip, including by force. Perhaps that's what China's neighbours want to avoid.
It seems to me, reading on the relation between Australia and China, that Australia tends to have a superiority complex. Australia is a country of 25 million: they are no match to China or any other major powers, so whilst it is of course right for them to defend their interests I don't see how their current aggressive rhetoric can lead to anything positive.
Australia doesn't have an independent foreign policy. This deal just shows who is in who's pocket. Australia has no choice because it can't defend itself. It has no military capability to defend against any enemy.
It means we Australians are destined to follow the US again into whatever conflict the US finds itself in. Because if we don't, we're on our own, and a very big (geographically) and soft target.
You're right but I don't think that this implies that they have no choice but to be an American 'protectorate'. It obviously used to be a British colony (and obviously is still formally part of the British Realm) and IMHO effectively switched to being an American 'protectorate' during WWII.
Having the technology to sink the massive kind of surface fleet an adversary needs to reach Australia, guarantees Australian freedom, independence and self determination.
Australia has friends in the world with no desire or interest in oppressing them.
I've had this discussion a few times. I don't think we live in the same world any more, where physical invasion of country is advantageous. What exactly are we defending against?
I just don't see the Chinese trying to invade and control Australia. What would they get from that? All the resources? They already get those - and it's a lot cheaper to just buy them than it would be to keep a hostile invading army in place to dig them up themselves. China even operates some mines on Australian soil already (with all-Chinese staff, flown in direct from China). What on earth could they take from us that we won't sell them freely?
Australia is a US naval/supply/intelligence base, and that's it. The only militarily interesting targets in the country are owned by the US.
I think the Kiwis got the right idea here. The only way to win this game is to not play.
Subs could be useful to protect/attack shipping or military assets that are protecting/attacking shipping.
It does seem improbable that we will see large scale land invasions of developed countries. However, European nations also thought that was improbable pre-WW1. It's not crazy to err on the side of caution here. After all you could ask the same questions about the Chinese military build-up --- no-one's going to invade mainland China, obviously.
NZers definitely don't want to be in the nuclear sub business but I think the majority of NZers are concerned about the direction of the CCP and are happy to be part of ANZUS and Five Eyes. Sure, we want to keep taking China's money but if push comes to shove there's no doubt which side we're on.
It’s a lot more strategically complex than that. Fo example, America manages the majority of its signals intelligence for a large chunk of the Asian content through various faculties such as pine gap [1].
You’d be foolish to postulate that geopolitically charged agendas are driven by a simple explanation such as “a superiority complex”.
Of course the US are powerful, and in fact pretty much control Australia, which is indeed a small country. Australia is getting a bit ahead of itself if they think they are a match for China. I think Australia would be foolish to believe that being best bud with the playground's biggest bully means that they can freely do as they please and that it is useless for them to remain civil to others.
Your statement is contradictory - on one hand you agree that the US values Australia therefore justifying their decision for this agreement, and on the other you say Australia is independently matching itself to China - it’s not appropriate or correct to selectively choose parts of either statement because they are are in fact mutually exclusive relative to your argument.
Either Australia is a puppet of the US and therefore by postering towards China it is not an AU vs CN issues but instead a US vs CN (via AU) issue or somehow Australia has managed to convince US to give them top secret technology and have independently decided to tackle CN.
Over to you - which is it?
Australia is a puppet of the US and at the same time is having a "complex of superiority" (which permeates the West as a whole, to be fair), because who are those 'Chinamen', anyway? Nothing contradictory, there are several aspects at play, but I am foolish as you say.
Considering the history of Australia the hypocrisy is grotesque, and this just shows that the bad old habits die hard.
