Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 299 posts

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#201

Post by bobbytit »

systemvoltage wrote: post #190

This is not good - the west should be unifying against Russia and China, not infighting. Bunch of comments here about how US is an unreliable partner, how France is throwing a tantrum over trivial matters and how Australia is stabbing them in the back. The larger picture of all this bickering is causing sentiment dent amongst NATO countries and the rest of the western powers. Media finds all this spicy and it has bee…

Australia realised that Macron was a snake when he cosied up to China for the EU China trade deal and then started threatening Australia with EU climate export tariffs.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#203

Post by ericmay »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #185
ericmay wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess Europeans aren't happy to impose political sanctions on command. Right. And so now the United States is moving on from Europe. They still get all the benefits of trade and such without any of the commitment that they feel wasn't being reciprocated. I'm not trying to make a moral judgement of the US or EU or something here, just trying to interpret what moves are being made.

"Right. And so now the United States is moving on from Europe" This "US was helping ungratefull Europe, and now is tired of doing so" story seems to have a few pages missing. The US bases here are largest outside US itself, and are vital for US logistics - they have everything from stategic airlift to nukes. Every deployment to Middle East involved them. So lets not pretend US has no need of them. US ability to proje…

> This "US was helping ungratefull Europe, and now is tired of doing so" story seems to have a few pages missing.

It doesn't matter what is true, it matters how the parties feel about these things.

> The US bases here are largest outside US itself, and are vital for US logistics - they have everything from stategic airlift to nukes. Every deployment to Middle East involved them. So lets not pretend US has no need of them.

The US isn't going to be in the Middle East anymore.

> US ability to project power around the world depends on countries being willing to host their kit.

Eh not really. Aircraft carriers, aerial refueling capabilities, etc. It definitely makes things easier though. For the Pacific the US has Australia, Guam, the Mariana Islands, etc.

> Where can I see the evidence of this "moving on" happening in the real world, rather than it just being a diplomatic spat? None of the equipment has left.

The US just walked out of Afghanistan without giving a shit about NATO and started giving nuclear technology to Australia within the span of about 3 months... The US is moving missiles out of Saudi Arabia [1].

I mean it's not like it's going to be some big announcement or something.

[1] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-removes-advanced-missi...

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#204

Post by throw_m239339 »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #155
throw_m239339 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trying to sell weapons to Russia, an aggressive total dictatorship, you deserved that one Well USA is selling or has sold weapons to Saudi Arabia, a known democracy respecting human rights/s Weapons used to massacre children in Yemen, I mean let's not claim USA is a paragon of virtue either, when it comes to the business of war.

To be fair France did it too. Looking at arms deal from rich democracies is a sure way to become really cynical.

> To be fair France did it too. Looking at arms deal from rich democracies is a sure way to become really cynical.

Whatever, France shouldn't have caved when USA asked them to violate their business contract with Russia and not deliver the ship. USA couldn't care less when they do the exact same thing. Now France looks a fool.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#205

Post by throw_m239339 »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #151
throw_m239339 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A complete and shameful shit show. This wasn't even a warship. Yes, it made the French look like fools and untrustworthy and they had to dump that ship to another nation for a huge discount. A complete failure. Merci Hollande! /s USA is nobody"s ally when it's about business. USA only has interests.

> This wasn't even a warship. It's an helicopter carrier with advanced air space control and telecommunication capacities. That's definitely a warship.

> It's an helicopter carrier with advanced air space control and telecommunication capacities. That's definitely a warship.

That ship had no offense capabilities.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#206

Post by unclebucknasty »

Kiro wrote: post #49
sergiomattei wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You know what else is as old as the hills? Those guidelines. https://web.archive.org/web/20140702092610/https://news.ycom... It might have been an illusion before but I personally think HN feels more like Reddit nowadays compared to then.

>You know what else is as old as the hills? Those guidelines.

Funny part is the guidelines link to old posts that show how long people have been complaining that HN is becoming Reddit, as if this is proof it can't possibly be true. But, what it really shows is how much time has passed since they've declared that HN isn't becoming Reddit. Is it impossible for something to have changed in those ~15 years?

It also states that this is just a noob misperception. Fair enough. So, what does it say when long time HN users--who previously did not make this comparison--start to do so?

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#207

Post by ericmay »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #194
ericmay wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fastest Europe separates itself from the American sphere of influence, the better. And now you know why the US and UK didn't give the slightest shit about how mad France got about this deal. NATO is dead, the US is leaving Europe for better or worse, wanted or not. And keep in mind I'm just doing my best at an interpretation/observation. Everything you cite here from the perspective of some or many European nat…

I think you should take a look at the UK trade routes, import situation, geographic position and internal political situation.

Well what's the worst-case scenario? The US would just give the UK stuff if it came to that. But the UK will continue to trade with Europe and international partners. Probably won't be "as good" but this changing in geostrategy doesn't mean countries won't trade with each other or something... I mean the US and China and all that are a pretty good example. I mean the US trades with Russia even.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#208

Post by sudosysgen »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #189
systemvoltage wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is making rad bombs trivial? Can you just dump nuclear fuel out of the sub and stick it in a gun-type bomb with no prior experience?

From what I understand, your basic nuclear weapon (WWII tech) isn’t technically difficult to build because the principles are well known. The uranium is the difficult part. Sure you could extract the fuel rods, but how many weapons will you get out of it? Is having a handful of low yield bombs worth the international sanctions? I think you’re better off having strategic strike capability with cruise missiles from sub…

These submarines have 95% enrichment fuel. You only need ~10kg to make a high yield weapon with the right design.

You're going to get multiple weapons with the fuel stored in a single submarine.

Cruise missiles are vulnerable. They can be intercepted and shot down, and they give your position away. Low reward, high risk. Nuclear deterrence can certainly be worth it.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#209

Post by sudosysgen »

systemvoltage wrote: post #191
sudosysgen wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much, yes. Enrichment is the hard part and US subs have fuel enriched enough for a gun type nuke.

I wonder if the subs have enough quantity of fuel to make a respectable explosion. Like if they need to ditch 8 subs to make a bomb, it is pretty low risk if I were China.

If you run the number, you'll find that a sub is going to have at least a half a ton of highly enriched uranium, perhaps even more than a ton.

You wouldn't even need to ditch a single sub to make multiple warheads, certainly not if you use an implosion design as any country can pretty easily do nowadays.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#210

Post by fspeech »

ballarak wrote: post #188
cedricgle wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why France sticks with the USA/UK at this point as they treated as bull-crap. I am sure they could strike a good deal with the Chinese and be better off: like leasing land in the Caribbean Sea or making a joint venture in some weapon. France don't really care about the China Sea in the end. They should be as "pragmatical" as the Aussie !.

Because France doesn't need to care about China but they do need to care about Russia, and they don't have the ability to counterbalance Russia without the US. This is part of why their nationalist movement to rebuilt their military is growing strength, but they're far from being capable of being independent from the US.

Europe and China are much more naturally aligned in not wanting to see Russia as a dominant military power. Review the history of the cold war if reference is needed.
Post reply on HN