Home › Forums › Discussion Forum › New World Shifting to the Indo-Pacific new nuclear powered submarines › Reply To: New World Shifting to the Indo-Pacific new nuclear powered submarines
This I thought was amusing.
Australia has made a choice it was probably forced to make. Caitlin Johnstone’s article is illuminating.
“So there you have it. Australia is not aligned with the US to protect itself from China. Australia is aligned with the US to protect itself from the US.”
“Now some people say there’s an alternative: you can go with China,” said Mearsheimer. “Right you have a choice here: you can go with China rather the United States. There’s two things I’ll say about that. Number one, if you go with China you want to understand you are our enemy. You are then deciding to become an enemy of the United States. Because again, we’re talking about an intense security competition.”
“You’re either with us or against us,” he continued. “And if you’re trading extensively with China, and you’re friendly with China, you’re undermining the United States in this security competition. You’re feeding the beast, from our perspective. And that is not going to make us happy. And when we are not happy you do not want to underestimate how nasty we can be. Just ask Fidel Castro.”
The debate from which those quotes come can be found on youtube here as well as being embedded in Johnstone’s article. It is worth watching all of it including the Q+A.
MOA also has an article about this.
“The price for the new submarines Australia will have to pay will be much higher that for the French ones. Some $3 billion have already been sunk into the French contract. France will rightfully demand additional compensation for cancelling it. The new contract with the U.S. or UK will cost more than the French one but will only include 8 instead of 12 boats. As three boats are needed to keep one at sea (while the other two are training or in refit), the actual patrolling capacity for Australia’s navy will sink from 4 to 2-3 concurrent submarines at sea.”
I have read elsewhere that Australia will continue its commitment for no civil (nuclear power stations) or military (Nukes) nuclear infrastructure. So the reactors will come from USA or UK as will the required nuclear fuel. How will Australia deal with the nuclear waste? If they have no infrastructure who will dispose of it for them?
Australia will have to develop port facilities to handle these subs and maintain the reactors. This will give UKUSA access to capable ports to dock their own subs helping to perhaps extend their abilities to remain on station in that part of the globe.
The French are pissed off not simply because of the lost contract but also because as recently as August there was a meeting between an Australian and French dplomatic teams to work on the submarine deal. Obviously at this point the Aussies knew they were going to drop it.
Ultimately The French will realise the Aussies had little choice and the ultimate response will be directed at USA.