261–270 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These nuclear subs run on highly enriched uranium. There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore.
Power plants run on about 5% enriched, subs on 50%, weapons on 90%. Any country that can sell you a nuclear sub can also sell you the fuel, non-proliferation doesn’t come into it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The upset is not just about the loss of a commercial deal, I'm sure there will be some contractual compensations. The issue is about the manner in which the deal was announced. Newspapers describe the urgent calls from the AU officials to their French counterparts hours before the very public announcement by the US, UK and AU. Diplomatically, that's a pretty callous thing to do to a partner. The ballooning costs may…
As a French, this is very much the feeling here. We do not talk much about the financial impact (though Naval Group is obviously not happy) but indeed rather the way it was announced. As for the trust part, I would say that this is more being naive, which is always a surprise to me. We dealt with the British during Brexit and the overall feeling is that we lost the deal (fishing, British disregard of the deal, Irelan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your premise is that the US, UK, and Australia just went about this as though they didn’t know exactly how France would react and that what they did was stupid and unintentional, and that they believe that France or the EU are important strategic partners. What I would say is that I question this premise. It’s not Trump. I don’t doubt for a second that this reaction is something of a surprise for the allies we’re dis…
> I don’t think incompetence is a compelling answer given the current administration. Really? I see the debacle of Afghanistan as evidence that all recent US administrations are perfectly capable of incompetence – whether Bush or Obama or Trump or Biden. And Iraq before that. No denying that Trump took incompetence to worrying new heights, but I don't think we should therefore dismiss the idea that the other three ad…
Sorry I just don’t buy the incompetence argument.
What is going on here is geopolitical calculus. The US doesn’t care about France that much anymore. I think we all want to cling to the past, but the world is changing. Alliances come and go, things change. France and the EU have lost a lot of status with the US and I don’t think the US views them as willing partners in the US’s approach to contain China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That would make a good strategy for China if it were true: keep tension high at the SCS to draw US away from Europe; solidify relationship with Europe to develop technology and hedge against Russia.
I think it’s more so Europe being independent and trading with both China and the US and keeping both at arms length, which is what’s driving the US to stop caring about Europe militarily. No more Middle East wars (oil supply is secured and Iraq was won), and why bother defending Europe? What are they defending it from? They can’t stop Russia from chipping away at countries. The EU is going to have to do that.
So for the US it’s like why spend money or resources or attention in Europe? Just trade with the EU like any other countries and get the same benefits without any of the cost.
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.
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. Why wouldn't they? Nuclear retaliation is their whole defense doctrine. They probably won't need to because they maintain adequate diplomatic relationships with all of the different powers in the Pacific. > I'm not really sure that's true. And why would it be less true with better detection technology now than it would have been…
We’re at risk of losing any essence of what we were originally talking about. But I see no compelling reason that France would launch nuclear weapons for any reason other than a potential invasion of France or unless some other country launched nuclear weapons at it.
> Carrier groups are too slow and carry too little protection to actually resist an attack from a military of an equivalent technological level nowadays.
Not seeing any evidence of this whatsoever.
> Anti-ballistic ship missiles and supersonic missiles fired from high altitude are a pain to detect and fly too fast to be reliably stopped. The US has been trying to develop counter-measures but their actual capabilities are unproved and they remain vulnerable to saturation.
So nobody has a Navy then… and now the US just maintains the current advantages it has? And why develop hypersonic missiles (which the US has) and deploy them when your potential adversaries can’t stop cheaper cruise missiles either. Launched from, oh, idk, nuclear powered subs in the region that the US Navy also has and is increasing via allies such as Australia?
And not to mention, potential adversaries have to find US ships and overcome their defenses which, are pretty good though not perfect. Meanwhile those ships are probably out there doing things in places you don’t have reach to. If a war broke out with China, which is a country that is massively dependent on imports, you can just use your land based (Japan, Guam, Australia, etc.) and have the US Navy seize shipments coming to China. Now what? Transport resources from Central Asia to vulnerable factories and other facilities in the coast?
> You will not be able to operate carriers close to China or Russia if they want them out of the picture.
You’re assuming that it’s necessary to do so and that the US fleet is somehow just a passive recipient of attacks without countermeasures or the ability to initiate an offensive.
> Cripple your navy? Nuck you? Geopardize your economic blocus with China and provide them with the mineral they need? They could do all of these things.
Well jeez in that case the US can just nuke Russia! But we aren’t talking about unrealistic, world-ending scenarios. Russia can’t cripple the US Navy, won’t nuke it, and is already trading with China.
> Step out of your bubble. You don't understand the actual position of the USA in the modern world. You can't just dismiss countries. That's not how diplomacy works.
“Someone has a different opinion than me so they just live in a bubble”
c’mon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a French, this is very much the feeling here. We do not talk much about the financial impact (though Naval Group is obviously not happy) but indeed rather the way it was announced. As for the trust part, I would say that this is more being naive, which is always a surprise to me. We dealt with the British during Brexit and the overall feeling is that we lost the deal (fishing, British disregard of the deal, Irelan…
You need to unify with Germany and other countries with the EU, this will give you the required clout against the other blocs of the world. As a Brit, Brexit was the day the world fell apart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.