Australia’s new defence pact with UK and US

jerry old said:
Many decades ago New Zealand banned U. S. Navy Warships fearing that the nukes the U. S. carried on several of
their warships would invite a nuclear strike on their nation.

The U. S. got all huffy, 'What, you want to ban our warships'!!!

I thought it showed uncommonly good sense, ' We would rather not have A-bombs raining down on us
in an attempt to sink your warships.'
Click to expand...

Why do I get the feeling that America convinced Australia to squash the deal with France selling them diesel powered subs as opposed to America selling them the Ohio Class SSBN's that have reached the end of their service lives and are being replaced with the new Columbia Class SSBN's. I'm not sure but I think America would reconfigure the Ohio's missile tubes to launch conventional cruise missiles only. Now since France recalled their diplomats will America and their only other nuclear capable ally England with their Vanguard SSBN's order the French to reconfigure their SSBN's for conventional missiles and give up their nuclear missiles. Hmmmmmm.
 
Granny B. said:
From what I have been reading the subs are "nuclear-powered" and will not be carrying nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...
That is correct and your use of the future tense is also correct.

These subs do not as yet exist. Neither do the plans for a nuclear powered sub with non nuclear warheads. The price has not been settled nor is it clear which country will make/assemble which parts of the project.

I probably won't live long enough to see the first one launched.
 
Shero said:
France has withdrawn ambassadors from Australia and US. Some very bad feeling all round.
Click to expand...
Indonesia, our closest neighbour, is a bit worried and Malaysia is concerned about an arms race in the Indo Pacific region. The EU as well as China may impose trade sanctions. Post Covid life in Australia could be rather tough going.

In spite of all of the above I think the decision was a necessary one.
 
senior chef said:
Foolish ventures ? The foolish venture would be to allow China to have free reign over the entire South China Sea. China has already claimed vast tracts of sea that are way, way OUTSIDE their territorial waters. Moreover, China is harassing Philippine fishing boats that fish in international waters.

In 1950 China invaded Tibet and took complete control. Sooner or later, China will take Taiwan.

Most nations think in terms of a decade or so into the future. China thinks in terms of centuries.
Click to expand...
China has been waging a bulletless war for a very long time. The USA has been weakened by giving massive manufacturing business to China. USA borrows money from China. China owns a massive amount of assets within the USA. Now this is not entirely a bad thing, China likely does not want to kill it's consumers, but China is very much in the driver's seat.
 
Lawrence Nobs said:
China has been waging a bulletless war for a very long time. The USA has been weakened by giving massive manufacturing business to China. USA borrows money from China. China owns a massive amount of assets within the USA. Now this is not entirely a bad thing, China likely does not want to kill it's consumers, but China is very much in the driver's seat.
Click to expand...
I'm not so entirely sure about that. It seems to me that, ultimately, the customer is in the drivers seat. Moreover, the USA could simply refuse to re-pay China on its borrowed money.
The USA could attach those assets that the Chinese own in the USA
Additionally, the USA could ban any and all goods shipped from China. OR, the USA could tax those goods so heavily that no-one would buy them.

If enough nations gathered together, they could brand China as a rouge nation, and start a world boycott.
 
senior chef said:
I'm not so entirely sure about that. It seems to me that, ultimately, the customer is in the drivers seat. Moreover, the USA could simply refuse to re-pay China on its borrowed money.
The USA could attach those assets that the Chinese own in the USA
Additionally, the USA could ban any and all goods shipped from China. OR, the USA could tax those goods so heavily that no-one would buy them.

If enough nations gathered together, they could brand China as a rouge nation, and start a world boycott.
Click to expand...
The US froze the on-shore assets of many CCP businessmen earlier this year, and did not renew their visas. Major businesses from all over the "free" world are pulling out of China, and some countries are taking over operating the Belt and Road projects in their ports (including Australia, I think).

When the CCP gets angry about any of this stuff, they're told it is in response to PLA aggression in the So. China sea. So we've got a tit-for-tat thing going on now. imo, that's one step up from the Grey War that the CCP started over decade ago. They've had plenty of time to cool their jets. They obviously aren't planning to.
 
Granny B. said:
From what I have been reading the subs are "nuclear-powered" and will not be carrying nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...
Nuclear-powered subs are practically silent, making them extremely difficult to detect, and they don't require being brought to the surface for refueling. Most of them have diesel generators as an alternate power source in case of a fault in the reactor but they can go for several years before they need to be refueled.
 
Last edited:
Alligatorob said:
For good strategic reasons I do not believe any warship would really tell us if they had nuclear weapons. So if you don't want them you have to keep any ship capable of carrying them out.
Click to expand...
Nearly ALL of the US's water craft were modified so that they can be fitted with nuclear weapons, but they don't normally carry them. I think the rule of engagement is that they can only carry them into disputed waters that are under threat, and it's very specific about the level of threat.
 
Murrmurr said:
Nearly ALL of the US's water craft were modified so that they can be fitted with nuclear weapons, but they don't normally carry them. I think the rule of engagement is that they can only carry them into disputed waters that are under threat, and it's very specific about the level of threat.
Click to expand...
That said, US water craft have been "caught" carrying nuclear weapons, but the US military argued that no detonators were onboard, and they were just transporting them from point A to point B.
 
sub.jpg

Britain’s nuclear-powered submarines are to use Australia as a base so that they can have a more persistent presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Senior government sources said that the AUKUS pact could lead to the Royal Navy’s £1.4 billion Astute-class attack submarines undergoing deep maintenance in the region so they can stay deployed for longer rather than returning to the Faslane naval base in Scotland.

The plans would materialize once the Australians start building their own fleet of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines over the coming years with the help of the British and Americans.

Source: The Times
 


Back
Top