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

241–250 of 299 posts

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

#241

Post by bequanna »

yyyk wrote: post #109

The issue is not the submarine deal, but frustrations lasting for months over other issues, in particular the travel ban. The US has had an EU travel ban for over 18 months, despite the EU having more vaccination and less covid than the US[0]. Which country's citizen are not banned from traveling to the US? Russia! Despite a soaring epidemic and very low vaccination rates. Biden told the world that 'America is back'.…

> If this continues, the US will simply have less allies.

I’m not so sure. We’re in a two super power world now with China being a threat to almost every Western country. Which countries do you think would risk losing support from US intelligence and military in this climate?

The EU just might have to put up with some of America’s BS if you want us to keep China in check when they come after your interests.

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

#242

Post by systemvoltage »

markus_zhang wrote: post #125
systemvoltage wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point #4. Distinction we need to make is that Australia will obtain Nuclear-powered subs, not nuclear weapons. I haven’t seen what “Nuclear Sub” entails with regards to this contract anywhere so please correct me if I am wrong. It’s not breaking the non-proliferation treaty.

Yes it's nuclear powered but the argument stands.

> The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) forbids signatories who don’t already have a bomb from making one. It also says they must put sensitive nuclear material, like enriched uranium, under international safeguards, monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a watchdog. But the rules have a submarine-shaped loophole. States are allowed to remove nuclear material from safeguards if they are for “a non-proscribed military activity”, such as submarine propulsion. No non-nuclear-armed state has ever tested that loophole—until now.

Source: https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does...

So it seems that it is technically not violating NPT.

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

#243

Post by pvm3 »

beerandt wrote: post #168
gpayan wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, as mentioned multiple times in the past couple of days by former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud, diesel was an Australia demand, which required France to modify its subs (all nuclear powered) and added complexity to the project. According to the former Ambassador, it would have been much easier and cheaper for France to supply Australia with nuclear subs.

Well I suspect the demand was at least partially due to budget, as opposed to philosophical or technological reasons for diesel over nuclear. Separately, I've got to think turnkey access to the tomahawk missiles has almost got to play a bigger role in this than the sub itself, other than being capable of carrying said missiles.

New Zealand does not allow nuclear-powered vessels in its waters [1][2], maybe this contributed to the initial diesel requirement.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone

[2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-n...

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

#244

Post by theteapot »

skissane wrote: post #33
trynumber9 wrote: post #3

It seems like a bit of an overreaction. Is shipbuilding that important to France?

It isn’t just that Australia cancelled the deal and made a new one with someone else. It is they kept their plans secret from France instead of letting them know about it and giving them a chance to make a counter-offer or save some face. France has nuclear submarines too, so maybe France could still have played some role? Maybe AUKUS could have been AFUKUS? They didn’t allow France into the negotiation room, and the…

"everything is fine"? What have you read anything about this submarine contract?? It's been on the edge for years. Aussies finally got feed up.

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

#246

Post by r00fus »

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.

The area in question is the south china sea, and further areas from China.

Probably related to the defense of entire chain of US reliant countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam as well as Australia.

Ultimately, it has to do with commerce as power influences commercial interests as well.

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

#247

Post by dirtyid »

sudosysgen wrote: post #120
dirtyid wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>always about money Usually the messier politics behind the scenes, in this case there was little notification, embarrassed French Pacific ambitions (France has substantial territory/EEZ holdings next to Australia), and a few months before the French election. Also diplomatically a dick move for transatlantic relationship, EU just announced their Indo-Pacific strategy. Last time in 1995 also had AU messing with Frenc…

US industrial espionage on the level of China and France (using Echelon and the rest of the NSA) was uncovered in the Snowden leaks. It's also about the US trying to force Australia to commit to an anti-China policy while the conservative government is in power. Australia announced support to the US in the region so it's also because of that. It's just dirty geopolitics. The US is trying to tie in Australia before th…

Pretty much. US and French MIC has always been filthy competitive. UK needs the $$$ after Brexit. AU both willing and IMO unable to object. It's just a very sensible geopolitical arrangement once the interest calculus is crunched. AU was always going to concede to US orbit. Getting US Nuke tech transfer is a big deal, consolation prize for $$$ from PRC that AU lost to US. Assuming the procurement goes through fine, which I doubt. As I mentioned in other post, IMO it's foot in door for other US assets that can be reoriented short term than SSNs that may or may not show up for 30+ years.

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

#248

Post by throwaway210222 »

fspeech wrote: post #182
edrxty wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why is it the US's fault Australia changed its mind?

These nuclear subs run on highly enriched uranium. There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore.

> There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore.

Incorrect, the UK has already shat all over the NPT.

The recent Trident plans will raise the UK's weapons from 180 to 260 warheads (> 40% increase).

Which is in complete violation of article VI.

The NPT is for the rest of us.

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

#249

Post by dirtyid »

fspeech wrote: post #226
dirtyid wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sinagpore and ASEAN signalled neutrality, US tried to get them to host IRBM that can reach within SCS within 1st island chain., No takers. QUAD drama means no military alliance, especially India. Leaves JP, US, AU. JP too close to PRC to be relied on if things turn hot. Leaves just US, AU. Add UK who has spare capacity for SSN with US tech. It's pretty much the only option left. The TLDR is there aren't any credible partners who will commit to PRC containment in region except AU whose far enough that protection can be guaranteed by US. Not in terms of security commitment, but just reality. US simply not in position to challenge PRC within SCS especially in 30 years. It's economic suicide pact for everyone else if regional war over TW breaks out. EU Indo-Pac policy also diluted. Arguably UK isn't fully on board but needs the business.

AU is just whose left. It's solid position near relevant 1st island chain SLOC choke points, but also signals how weak US posture in region actually is after lobbying under Trump + Biden. US sharing SSN secrets and pissing off France + timing of EU indo-pac strategy announcement should really raise eye brows. But again, west AU is solid location for now.

Post reply on HN