AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.


Lethe

Senior Member
I also highly doubt the US will let them license build nuclear submarines there.

A nuclear submarine design is a small price to pay to secure a useful vassal like Australia. The Soviet Union offered nuclear submarines to the PRC back when they envisioned PLAN as an extension of their own forces too.
 

gelgoog

Colonel
Registered Member
A nuclear submarine design is a small price to pay to secure a useful vassal like Australia. The Soviet Union offered nuclear submarines to the PRC back when they envisioned PLAN as an extension of their own forces too.
You don't know how the US typically operates. Those submarines will likely have mixed crews and the Australians won't even be allowed to go near the reactor. There is no civilian nuclear industry in Australia to speak of. So they do not even have the crew to operate that kind of equipment.
 

Lethe

Senior Member
You don't know how the US typically operates. Those submarines will likely have mixed crews and the Australians won't even be allowed to go near the reactor.

That's the point. These will basically be USN boats with different accents. Funded by Australians but serving American interests. Hence it is in Washington's interest to facilitate Australia's transition from "ally" to "vassal" by supporting this program in ways that bind Australia to Washington ever more inextricably.
 

supersnoop

Senior Member
Registered Member
That's the point. These will basically be USN boats with different accents. Funded by Australians but serving American interests. Hence it is in Washington's interest to facilitate Australia's transition from "ally" to "vassal" by supporting this program in ways that bind Australia to Washington ever more inextricably.

I would say I’m not even sure there will be different accents. Maybe a few Australians on board for image purposes only.
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
That's the point. These will basically be USN boats with different accents. Funded by Australians but serving American interests. Hence it is in Washington's interest to facilitate Australia's transition from "ally" to "vassal" by supporting this program in ways that bind Australia to Washington ever more inextricably.
@Lethe bro it will be a smooth transition as the Australian slang word "mate" is a common jargon use in the US Navy (Mate — fellow shipmate). :cool:
 

Skywatcher

Captain
The Australians will pay the French for cancelling the contract and won't get submarines any time soon either.
I also highly doubt the US will let them license build nuclear submarines there.
If the Australians do anything more than assembled prefabricated hull sections together, the Aussie nuke boats will each the entire Australian defense budget for at least the next fifty years.
 

Lethe

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Australia’s deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, has had a “frank” hour-long discussion with China’s defence minister in Singapore, marking the highest level in-person contact between the countries in almost three years.

Marles, also the defence minister, said he raised the controversial interception of an Australian aircraft by a Chinese jet last month and broader issues in the Pacific with China’s minister of national defence, Wei Fenghe, during a meeting on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue ministerial conference in Singapore.

[....]

Later, Marles said the meeting with Wei was “a critical first step”.

“As [United States Defence] Secretary [Lloyd] Austin observed after his own meeting with Defence Minister Wei, it is really important in these times to have open lines of dialogue,” he said.

“Australia and China’s relationship is complex, and it’s precisely because of this complexity that it is really important that we are engaging in dialogue right now.”

Marles said the meeting, lasting more than an hour, was “hosted by China” and was organised after the two ministers were seated together at a dinner on Friday night, but declined to provide any further details of what they discussed in the meeting.

“We want to take this in a very sober and deliberate manner. We don’t underestimate the difficulties we’ve had in our bilateral relationship,” Marles said.

[....]

Marles said there would be continuity in Australian defence policy despite the change of government, including support for the US alliance, implementing Aukus and keeping defence spending above 2% of GDP.

But he also foreshadowed “a change in Australia’s tone”. He said while Australia would “always be forthright in articulating our national interest and in advocating for our region’s security”, the Albanese government “will be respectful, including with countries where we have complex relationships”.

Marles said Australia valued a productive relationship with China.

He said Australia’s approach would be anchored in a resolve to safeguard its national interest and support regional security and stability, while “looking for avenues of cooperation where they exist”.

Shortly after the 21 May election, China’s premier, Li Keqiang, sent a congratulatory message to the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, saying Beijing was “ready to work with the Australian side to review the past, look into the future, and uphold the principle of mutual respect and mutual benefit”.

But so far, the Albanese government has reiterated the view that China had changed, not Australia. It has urged Beijing to put substance behind its overtures for dialogue by removing trade sanctions against Australian export sectors such as barley and wine.

Small steps, but welcome ones. Dialogue is always preferable to a lack thereof. There are two significant developments involved here:

(1) Beijing being prepared to engage in dialogue with Canberra (i.e. a slight thawing of the "freeze" that has engulfed the relationship these past few years). This was first mooted some months ago with the arrival of China's new Ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, but was not taken up by the Australian government of the day, preoccupied as it was with the electoral machinations of appearing "tough on China".
(2) The new Australian government, in contrast to its predecessor, being prepared to engage in dialogue with Beijing, and in doing so to publicly make the case for diplomacy against its detractors.
 
Last edited:

Dolcevita

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Small steps, but welcome ones. Dialogue is always preferable to a lack thereof. There are two significant developments involved here:

(1) Beijing being prepared to engage in dialogue with Canberra (i.e. a slight thawing of the "freeze" that has engulfed the relationship these past few years). This was first mooted some months ago with the arrival of China's new Ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, but was not taken up by the Australian government of the day, preoccupied as it was with the electoral machinations of appearing "tough on China".
(2) The new Australian government, in contrast to its predecessor, being prepared to engage in dialogue with Beijing, and in doing so to publicly make the case for diplomacy against its detractors.

Thread lightly when dealing with snakes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top