If they buy Rolls Royce rectors they are completely sealed and can’t be refueled, so in theory they could come up with something like keeping the reactors under British ownership? Doesn’t stop them doing as you suggest though, but might get around some “rules”.
If they buy Rolls Royce rectors they are completely sealed and can’t be refueled, so in theory they could come up with something like keeping the reactors under British ownership? Doesn’t stop them doing as you suggest though, but might get around some “rules”.
I am impressed! Great work.
This is exactly the loophole to the non-proliferation treaty AUKUS is exploiting now. The problem is not just the obvious danger of proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material by non-nuclear weapon states, but the broader implication of undermining non-proliferation and arms control efforts worldwide (Iran, NK. Hello??), which the Anglo Three, in their overzealous drive to put China down, clearly didn't care about any of it enough to even give it a moment's thought.
Last edited:
Isn't the S9G a sealed unit as well? I can't see even the Americans being willing to openly start supplying the HE uranium needed for refuelling. Even for the Americans, that'd be a bit too much when it comes to pissing all over non-proliferation.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The point is less that Australia might scrap their brand new subs to make nukes with their reactors (they can do that easily enough with civilian nuclear power plants if they really wanted nukes without wasting hundreds of billions for scrap metal, which is what SSNs without their reactors will be)but rather that if China was sufficiently pissed off, it could use this exact same precedent to effectively sell nukes to America’s enemies.
Hey Cuba, wanna buy some retired Han class SSNs from China?
How about you Iran and Saudi Arabia? We will sell you both a couple boats each to keep it fair.
Since we ran out of retired Han subs, how about we retrofit a Song/yuan with a nuclear reactor? It shouldn’t matter that the SSK can still fully function if you strip out the nuclear reactor since you signed on this piece of paper here that you won’t do it! If a pinky swear from the Aussies is good enough for the Brits and Americans, the same is good enough for China. Hell, China can do mad volumes with a minimally modified SSK with retrofitted nuclear reactor AIP.
Hell, Russia might have just found the solution to their soviet SSN rush fleet problem here. No need to spend vast amounts decommissioning them, just sell them to whoever wants nukes.
If they completely tear apart the JCPOA and go: "sanctions be damned!", then sure. Iran has been enriching uranium beyond the agreed limit of 3.67% nowadays anyway.
Yes, I get it now, very clever.
I had thought that the AUKUS sub deal might involve a decommissioning site down under, far, far away from the UK, where we can dump all our old boats/reactors.
This is a story of geopolitically driven military procurement gone mad.
Australia is an island nation whose very survival is dependent upon its ability to access strategic sea lines of communication (SLOCs) so that critical commerce links can operate on a sustained basis. In short, if any nation or group of nations were to cut off Australia’s sea links to the rest of the world, the country would eventually wither away and die.
Despite its impressive land mass, Australia is a relatively small nation, with a population of just under 26 million (making it 55th in world rankings) with a GDP of US$1.3 trillion (13th in the world.) The 2021 defense budget had Australia spending 2.1% of its GDP, or around AU$44.6 billion. Just under AU$16 billion of this was spent on the Australian Navy, which is comprised of nearly 50 commissioned vessels and over 16,000 personnel...
The beauty of the US-UK proposal is that there are no messy details attached – how much the program will cost, how Australia will operate advanced nuclear power systems when it has no indigenous nuclear power experience to draw upon, and, perhaps most importantly, how Australia plans on manning eight large submarines when it can barely field four crews for its existing Collins-class fleet?
Moreover, beyond the US-dictated operational premise of “challenging the Chinese,” the record is silent on how the acquisition of large nuclear-powered submarines will advance Australian national security. It is the silence and maneuverability which made the Collins-class submarine such a potentially lethal weapon. Any Australian fleet equipped with nuclear submarines will find it difficult to operate in the shallow waters that define the majority of the SLOCs they will be required to defend. Moreover, the noise and bulkier configuration of a nuclear-powered submarine will mean any future Australian force will be far less capable when it comes to killing a modern naval opponent, and far more likely to be detected and destroyed.
The reality is the US-UK offer to provide Australia with nuclear submarines is little more than domestic politics projected onto a theoretical geopolitical map of the US’ making. Australia was facing a fiscal crisis due to the exploding budget associated with the French-designed replacement for the Collins-class submarine, one that could threaten to bring down the government of Scott Morrison. Boris Johnston remains desperate for a platform from which he can project an image of UK geopolitical relevance. And Biden is in desperate need of being able to do the same for an American constituency reeling after the humiliation of losing a 20-year conflict in Afghanistan.
But the fact remains that the US has no meaningful military counter to China, the UK is not capable of sustaining any credible military presence in the Pacific, and Australia cannot afford to acquire and operate a force of eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. The Australian nuclear submarine project is a dangerous joke that only further exacerbates the existing geopolitical crisis with China by injecting a military dimension which will never see the light of day.
Scott Ritter
Australia is an island nation whose very survival is dependent upon its ability to access strategic sea lines of communication (SLOCs) so that critical commerce links can operate on a sustained basis. In short, if any nation or group of nations were to cut off Australia’s sea links to the rest of the world, the country would eventually wither away and die.
Despite its impressive land mass, Australia is a relatively small nation, with a population of just under 26 million (making it 55th in world rankings) with a GDP of US$1.3 trillion (13th in the world.) The 2021 defense budget had Australia spending 2.1% of its GDP, or around AU$44.6 billion. Just under AU$16 billion of this was spent on the Australian Navy, which is comprised of nearly 50 commissioned vessels and over 16,000 personnel...
The beauty of the US-UK proposal is that there are no messy details attached – how much the program will cost, how Australia will operate advanced nuclear power systems when it has no indigenous nuclear power experience to draw upon, and, perhaps most importantly, how Australia plans on manning eight large submarines when it can barely field four crews for its existing Collins-class fleet?
Moreover, beyond the US-dictated operational premise of “challenging the Chinese,” the record is silent on how the acquisition of large nuclear-powered submarines will advance Australian national security. It is the silence and maneuverability which made the Collins-class submarine such a potentially lethal weapon. Any Australian fleet equipped with nuclear submarines will find it difficult to operate in the shallow waters that define the majority of the SLOCs they will be required to defend. Moreover, the noise and bulkier configuration of a nuclear-powered submarine will mean any future Australian force will be far less capable when it comes to killing a modern naval opponent, and far more likely to be detected and destroyed.
The reality is the US-UK offer to provide Australia with nuclear submarines is little more than domestic politics projected onto a theoretical geopolitical map of the US’ making. Australia was facing a fiscal crisis due to the exploding budget associated with the French-designed replacement for the Collins-class submarine, one that could threaten to bring down the government of Scott Morrison. Boris Johnston remains desperate for a platform from which he can project an image of UK geopolitical relevance. And Biden is in desperate need of being able to do the same for an American constituency reeling after the humiliation of losing a 20-year conflict in Afghanistan.
But the fact remains that the US has no meaningful military counter to China, the UK is not capable of sustaining any credible military presence in the Pacific, and Australia cannot afford to acquire and operate a force of eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. The Australian nuclear submarine project is a dangerous joke that only further exacerbates the existing geopolitical crisis with China by injecting a military dimension which will never see the light of day.
Scott Ritter
Last edited:
Short answer, no. For pretty much the same reasons Brazil getting the Álvaro Alberto class will also not be considered a NWS as per NPT.
Last edited: