AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

steel21

steel21

Junior Member
Registered Member
nlalyst said:
Nuclear propulsion is not against the NPT.

However, this does set a precedent for a non-nuclear power and opens the doors for other major players like Japan and S. Korea (and even Canada) to go nuclear with their submarines.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the long term strategy in such a move.

Nuclear proliferation will inherently nullify any advantage in US conventional military dominance.

When one day US is no longer the top dog, there will be even less incentives for vassals to hang around if they have a stealth deterrent lurking about.

Is this alliance sustained by rational risk mitigation or blind racial pride?

What will happen one day when US population is predominantly Catholic Latinos?
 
N

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
steel21 said:
I don't understand the long term strategy in such a move.

Nuclear proliferation will inherently nullify any advantage in US conventional military dominance.
Click to expand...
Australia will most likely receive a reactor with a lifetime core, therefore will never be involved in refueling nor manufacture of nuclear fuel.

I expect the IAEA to come up with a procedure on how to deal with nuclear material for naval propulsion that will still give some leverage to the US.
 
T

tonyget

Senior Member
Registered Member
nlalyst said:
Nuclear propulsion is not against the NPT.

However, this does set a precedent for a non-nuclear power and opens the doors for other major players like Japan and S. Korea (and even Canada) to go nuclear with their submarines.
Click to expand...

US and UK subs use weapon grade enriched uranium，in theory Australia could take the uranium out from sub to use them make nuclear weapons.

Also IAEA enforce NPT rules by routinely send people to check nuclear stockpile and reactors，nuclear sub is not subject to monitor by current NTP regulations，so that is an obvious loophole which will be exploited at some time if more countries follow the Australia suit


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
T

tonyget

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But some experts worry about how the new arrangement will impact the global nuclear power landscape.
“I think if Australia goes down this route and builds nuclear-powered submarines and removes nuclear material from safeguards, it sets a very damaging precedent,” said James Acton, the co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Acton said he is particularly concerned about how Iran will react to the announcement and whether the country will attempt to skirt safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by saying it is using nuclear material to build a submarine. Before the U.S. announcement, Acton said he would expect China and Russia to vehemently oppose any efforts by Iran to take such actions, but he said the calculus could change after the United States shares nuclear propulsion technology with Australia.
“I do believe the damage to the nuclear nonproliferation regime will be very significant, and I strongly believe it will outweigh the defense benefits of Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Largely
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in last week’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the U.S.–Australia nuclear-powered submarine deal is the fact that the U.S. government plans to build new U.S. military bases Down Under. In a September 16 press conference, Australia Defence Minister Peter Dutton announced plans to establish new facilities for naval, air, and ground forces with “combined logistics, sustainment, and capability for maintenance to support our enhanced activities, including…for our submarines and surface combatants” and “rotational deployments of all types of U.S. military aircraft to Australia.”
Click to expand...
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
From what I see, the AUKUS members really think that everyone else including China is just gonna lie flat and do nothing about it. They can do whatever they want with no consequences because it was like that when the boomer politicians were teenagers.

They didn't factor in that France might not like having 60 billion EUR essentially stolen from them as well as putting their shipbuilding sector in jeopardy, especially after the Mistral situation.

They didn't factor in that Malaysia and Indonesia would view it as a threat. Why? I'd just say there's Southeast Asian stereotypes in these countries and it's not implausible for older politicians to hold such beliefs.

They didn't factor in what China would do in response. I don't understand this - they've been saying China is aggressive, expansionist this and that, yet they don't think China would retaliate against what is essentially a direct threat?

Finally, note how they were going to rope in NATO first, then try the Quad, but now are down to 3?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top