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

221–230 of 299 posts

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

#221

Post by sudosysgen »

fspeech wrote: post #214
sudosysgen wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt they will use 95% uranium. [This guy]( https://theconversation.com/how-do-nuclear-powered-submarine... ) says it is about 50%. Still that is the level Iran is being sanctioned at.

The US uses 93-97% uranium as a matter of public record.

Other countries use more weakly enriched uranium, the US and UK are the exception, so I understand the error in the article above.

See this better source ; https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/06/naval-reactors-leu/

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

#222

Post by throwawaylinux »

cedricgle wrote: post #176
markus_zhang wrote: post #82

My observation: 1- US probably predicts that China is gonna breakthrough the first island chain in the next 10 years. 2- France needs to reconsider her Indo-Pacific stratrgy because Aussi explicitly shows that it's going all in with US instead of trying to follow some sort of independent strategy. 3- Win for whoever in EU who supports self defense and a more consolidated Europe. 4- First time a non nuclear country (A…

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 !.

You think it would be pragmatic for them to turn away from USA, UK, other EU and Anglosphere states, Japan, etc., and instead start forming military alliances with a genocidal communist dictatorship?

Interesting strategy.

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

#223

Post by dirtyid »

fspeech wrote: post #198
dirtyid wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1- US probably predicts that China is gonna breakthrough the first island chain in the next 10 years. I think the nuke boats / unicorn tech transfer is sweetner for AU hosting more US assets. Starting ASAP. Just announced more US bombers will be stationed down under. With bombers come ABM, and with ABM, might as well as throw in IRBMs. IMO, it's foot in door for improve US positioning in AU, who has already sunk cos…

But Australia is 5000 miles away from China, only slightly less than Hawaii. Sure Australia is lower cost with vast land but don't see how that is immediate game changer.

Bases in West Australia where US assets will be deployed are 1/2 distance from to maritime choke points vs Hawaii. Opens up more options.

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

#224

Post by senectus1 »

dustintrex wrote: post #117
emmelaich wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australian submarine situation has been a shit-show for 40 years. Glad its all over.

If Labor wins the next election, it's quite probable that they pull the plug on this deal.

they appear to be right behind it right now.

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

#225

Post by fspeech »

sudosysgen wrote: post #221
fspeech wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt they will use 95% uranium. [This guy]( https://theconversation.com/how-do-nuclear-powered-submarine... ) says it is about 50%. Still that is the level Iran is being sanctioned at.

The US uses 93-97% uranium as a matter of public record. Other countries use more weakly enriched uranium, the US and UK are the exception, so I understand the error in the article above. See this better source ; https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/06/naval-reactors-leu/

I wasn't questioning your numbers but thanks for the reference. I think they are being purposedly vague about this. Transferring weapons grade uranium would be a real threat to the NPT.

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

#226

Post by fspeech »

dirtyid wrote: post #223
fspeech wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Australia is 5000 miles away from China, only slightly less than Hawaii. Sure Australia is lower cost with vast land but don't see how that is immediate game changer.

Bases in West Australia where US assets will be deployed are 1/2 distance from to maritime choke points vs Hawaii. Opens up more options.

Will they try to choke Australia exports to China? Joke aside still don't see a lot of value add over Singapore in terms of blockade.

Unless we are talking about posturing?

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

#227

Post by ericmay »

skissane wrote: post #215
ericmay wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> France has nuclear-powered submarines carrying nuclear ICBMs. Of course they can defend their islands. Let's not pretend that France is going to go to nuclear war to over these territories. > France has a permanent navy presence in the Pacific. They don't need to get an aircraft carrier there. I mean so does the Philippines. The question is what are they going to do with it? > Aircraft carriers are useless against…

> Let's not pretend that France is going to go to nuclear war to over these territories. Who is going to conquer them? And if someone tried, I think it is likely that other regional powers would help – Australia, New Zealand, the US – not for any great love of France, but rather because they'd see such a conquest as a threat to their own national security, so they'd want to help France out of self-interest.

Sure so that goes back to my point, why does the US exactly care about France in the region? France can’t stop China (which is who would conquer those islands if anyone) and the US would have to do it anyway. Oh and France is staying at arms length from both the US and China.

New Zealand is kind of eh too. They don’t contribute much to the alliance of the Anglosphere countries and have been (for their own export-oriented economic reasons) reluctant to anger China… an ally in the region? Sure. But it depends on how (from the perspective of the US) annoying they are. The whole “no nuclear on the island” thing basically forces the US to violate New Zealand sovereignty in the event of a war if they’re going to dock there at all. So what’s the US to do? New Zealand wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Again, not judging NZ or France here, just speaking to what I’m observing in the geopolitical sphere.

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

#228

Post by ericmay »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #218
ericmay wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, France has far more territory in the Pacific than the UK, and better positioned too. This is kind of like a nice piece of trivia. France has 0 ability to protect those territories and they're pretty much useless to any other country except in the event of a war in the Pacific, in which case the US would be using them as basis (or China or Japan or whoever but definitely not France). Sure France could sail…

Core of the issue is this- underlying your comment on Huawei and Russian sanctions, seems to be an expectation that an entire continent of 28 countries and 500 million people should follow whatever random idea comes out of Washington that day. Today we are Invading Iraq, tomorrow we are pulling out, then we are invading again. European leaders can't follow all the dicktats from across the ocean, and the decision to s…

And that’s why the US is moving away from Europe militarily. Not much to gain. No more Middle East wars. An EU that (again perspective of the US) isn’t clearly on the side of the US (I don’t care about the reasons here some are legit of course) and who the US is feeling annoyed with having to get the EU to “do something for their own good”. Big expense for the US in political and military capital and not much in the way of returns.

If the US left Europe completely what happens? That’s the question the US is asking now and by the moves they’re making it seems to me the answer is a resounding “nothing that we care about”.

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

#229

Post by ericmay »

fspeech wrote: post #216
ericmay wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks to me like political hardball being played and it’s surprising France (and to a lesser extent the EU). Frankly, France and the EU have been trying to straddle a middle ground between the US and China, and strategically Europe is mostly irrelevant outside of the UK (yes I know France can project some power I’m not downplaying them) but they have been dragging their feet and the action is just not going to be in…

Geopolitically Europe is much more important to the US than Australia ever will be. If US wants to contain China technologically European cooperation is a must. Maybe this is a sign that they are giving up on that. Or this is just a short sighted move.

From the perspective of the US , Europe is not committed to the degree the Uk and Australia are to China (I would say this is a fact really) so there isn’t really anything to lose by shifting away to more important regions. Trade stays the same, and then the US can focus attention elsewhere and let the EU deal with Russia if there is such a need.

Australia is a big country, lots of resources, extremely important as a land of last resort in the Pacific. Far more important to US global interests than the EU. No question in my mind.

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

#230

Post by ericmay »

skissane wrote: post #212
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…

> but I wouldn't be shocked in the next 20-40 years to see free movement of trade and people between the US, Australia, and the UK. I doubt that is going to happen for full free movement of people. I think Australia especially doesn't want to allow anyone from the US or the UK to move here. Professionals with degrees–doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, engineers, IT people, etc–I think the majority of Australians…

Sure that can happen. I can also see Australia “opening up” as a condition of the alliance too.

All speculative here so thanks for your thoughts!!!! (Serious)

Post reply on HN