EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3315
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15713 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6231 Posts
On September 19 2021 07:22 WombaT wrote: What does it give you that you didn’t have before? Here's a pretty approachable summary of the whole thing: https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-is-a-nuclear-submarine-and-why-would-you-want-one-20210916-p58sep.html “This was pretty much unimaginable five years ago,” says Marcus Hellyer, a senior analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. “It would be unimaginable for us to ask for the technology, and pretty much unimaginable for the US to provide it to us … So, the world has fundamentally changed.” Nuclear subs are almost different class of asset. Subs in general are all about independence and avoidance of detection. They are very hard to find underwater, and are most exposed on the surface, especially in port during resupply. As LL said, conventional subs are air-breathing, they have to surface frequently and can be seen from the air when doing so. They are also quite loud when the engine is running, which makes them detectable and trackable. Plus they need to refuel regularly. Nuclear subs, on the other hand, are completely self-sufficient; they need air and food for the humans and that's it. They are silent and can stay totally submerged for weeks. Once they leave port they can essentially be anywhere in the world, and the other guy knows nothing except that they exist. For a strategic asset, this is huge and there is nothing else in the world that behaves the same. On September 19 2021 10:52 micronesia wrote: The price increase would likely be because nuclear is more expensive than diesel electric, regardless of whether the US and UK request any reimbursement or not. I think it's likely that Biden asked for a general increase in our military spending regardless. It makes sense for everyone. The deal is about more than submarines. There is collaboration on cyber, missile technology, more US gear based in Aus, a lot of other stuff. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-nuclear-submarine-deal-negotiated-in-great-secrecy/ They said this new alignment was intended to pursue deeper interoperability and to spur cooperation across many new and emerging arenas such as cyber, artificial intelligence and particularly applied AI, quantum technologies, and ‘some undersea capabilities as well’. There’d be a strong focus on increasing information- and technology-sharing with a much more dedicated effort to pursue integration of security- and defence-related science, technology and industrial bases and supply chains. ‘This will be a sustained effort over many years to see how we can marry and merge some of our independent and individual capabilities into greater trilateral engagement as we go forward.’ On the permanent supply dependency, my understanding is that the power units are completely sealed. The reactor ships with 30 years worth of fuel in it and when it runs out you either decommission the sub or put a new one in. Obviously these are ridiculously complex machines and we will be dependent on the US for some widget or other for the life of the ships, but I don't think we need a constant supply of nuclear fuel to keep them running. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On September 19 2021 12:49 Belisarius wrote: On the permanent supply dependency, my understanding is that the power units are completely sealed. The reactor ships with 30 years worth of fuel in it and when it runs out you decommission the sub. Obviously they are ridiculously complex and we would likely be dependent on the US for some widget or other for the life of the ships, but I don't think we need a constant supply of nuclear fuel to keep them running. But Australia doesn't have any way to create fissile material because they have essentially zero nuclear power in the whole country. This also means that they have no way to dispose of it in thirty years when the ships are decommissioned. Building out this infrastructure isn't really feasible either. The most significant aspect of this entire project is what it means for nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation is the reason that France was trying to force a nuclear sub design into diesel for Australia in the first place. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6231 Posts
However, once have a sub, I don't believe it needs to be regularly refuelled. The transfer of nuclear material is one-and-done per sub. I don't think disposal will be a major issue. Australia is actually very well endowed as a nuclear storage location. We are extremely geologically stable and have a lot of empty space. There have been proposals kicking around for a long time to set up long-term storage facilities in south australia, it's just never been politically popular. Also the reactors for each sub are like a couple cubic meters each. I think they will probably end up going back to the UK or the US because of NIMBYism, but we are talking the 2070s by that point so a lot can change. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On September 19 2021 13:00 Belisarius wrote: To be clear, I think the US will build the reactors. I doubt we can ever do that onshore. They need extremely high grade uranium afaik. However once have the sub, I don't believe it needs to be regularly refuelled. The transfer of nuclear material is one-and-done per sub. and to be abundantly clear that single transfer is against the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
When, not if, technical challenges arise in development, production, or operation, you’ll be paying out the ass for the US to deal with it, at far greater margins than that of delivering hardware as specialized as high-yield nuclear reactors. And if the prices aren’t to your liking… perhaps China would be a good alternative supplier? There are literally only 5 countries in the world allowed to have this technology after all. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On the permanent supply dependency, my understanding is that the power units are completely sealed. The reactor ships with 30 years worth of fuel in it and when it runs out you decommission the sub. Obviously they are ridiculously complex and we would likely be dependent on the US for some widget or other for the life of the ships, but I don't think we need a constant supply of nuclear fuel to keep them running. While your conclusion is likely correct, some of the other stuff isn't. US subs go into ROH (refuelling and overhaul) every 15-20 years. Usually that marks the "mid-life point". Yes, they're sealed, so that's correct. And no, of course they don't need a constant supply of fuel, that would kinda defeat the purpose. They run on weapons grade uranium, which lasts around 20 years before refuelling is required. One thing to note: my guess is, they'll get re-designed (potentially monkey-model) Virginia class boats. Which seems odd, since the reasoning mentions china. The propulsion systems by design are inferior to chinese designs (whether or not they're technologically on the same level, i can't tell). US designs run steam turbines, chinese (and french) designs run electric. You can quieten down turbines, but not to the level of direct-drive electric motors. In an environment where coughing can already spell doom to your boat, that does matter. Having no steam, no pumps, no reduction gears is quieter than needing those. Seems odd to go for an inferior propulsion system. Which, make no mistake, it absolutely is, factually. Proven by the fact that diesel/electric boats are quieter than US nuclear submarines when underwater (and not snorkeling/battery electric only). | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6231 Posts
On September 19 2021 13:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: and to be abundantly clear that single transfer is against the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It is not. There is an exclusion for subs. I can't find anything that's not paywalled but here is the economist. https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does-the-australian-submarine-deal-mean-for-non-proliferation And yes, electric is obviously quieter, but that only lasts as long as the batteries. There are pros and cons. Ideally you would probably have a couple of nuclear subs for strategic missions and a bunch of smaller diesel subs for coastal defence, but there is going to be a budget limit somewhere. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On September 19 2021 13:17 Belisarius wrote: It is not. There is an exclusion for subs. I can't find anything that's not paywalled but here is the economist. https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does-the-australian-submarine-deal-mean-for-non-proliferation Anonymous US official says we're totally not breaking the treaty isn't going to convince me. To be clear, the US can do whatever they want and no country is going to lift a finger. They've already broken the treaty with Israel by any sane observer. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15713 Posts
On September 19 2021 13:27 LegalLord wrote: So, potentially a silly question but worth asking: what kind of “strategic” use exactly does Australia have for submarines? Not being armed with nuclear weapons I imagine, so it’s going to be limited to a conventional armament. What kind of use case requires long-duration stealth with a conventional loadout? I think the basic idea is choking China in whatever way we can. Australia having a strong navy is bad for China. Anyone having a strong navy is bad for China if they aren't allied with China. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6231 Posts
On September 19 2021 13:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Anonymous US official says we're totally not breaking the treaty isn't going to convince me. Idk dude I'm not a nonproliferation lawyer. Unless you are, all either of us have is what's in the text and what the other signees are saying. That clause is there for subs. Even France, who are angry as hell, and NZ, who are so anti-nuclear they won't even let the US dock there, are not saying it breaks the treaty. Hell even China is only claiming it "sets back non-proliferation efforts". You are on your own as far as i can see. Here is a non-paywalled reprint of the economist article https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/300410410/aukus-what-does-the-australian-nuclear-submarine-deal-mean-for-nonproliferation 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. I think it's clear that this does set a dangerous precedent. However: After the cold war, much attention was paid to non-proliferation, observes David Santoro of the Pacific Forum, a think-tank. “Now power politics is back in force. Non-proliferation still matters but isn’t the sole consideration anymore”. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On September 19 2021 13:35 Belisarius wrote: Idk dude I'm not a nonproliferation lawyer. Unless you are, all either of us have is what's in the text and what the other signees are saying. That clause is there for subs. Even France, who are angry as hell, and NZ, who are so anti-nuclear they won't even let the US dock there, are not saying it breaks the treaty. Hell even China is only claiming it "sets back non-proliferation efforts". You are on your own as far as i can see. Here is a non-paywalled reprint of the economist article https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/300410410/aukus-what-does-the-australian-nuclear-submarine-deal-mean-for-nonproliferation I think it's clear that this does set a dangerous precedent. However: I'm not a lawyer on non-proliferation, but you arrived at the point I was making. If we go back to Israel, the US hasn't faced any consequences for that either. The obvious outcome is for China to start exporting as well which I'm sure everyone will have a different opinion about. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6231 Posts
If we ever see a PRC flag raised over Taiwan, however, nonproliferation could become a luxury. In that world, these kinds of subs and those kinds of missiles may be the only way any nation can be confident their homes will continue to belong to them. I don't want it, but I think we have to be honest about it. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On September 19 2021 14:06 Belisarius wrote: Look, to me the bottom line is that a rising superpower is in the process of fashioning a new and much more dangerous world. If it remains a good, or at least acceptable global citizen, none of this is necessary and I will be extremely glad. If we ever see a PRC flag raised over Taiwan, however, nonproliferation could become a luxury. In that world, these kinds of subs and those kinds of missiles may be the only way any nation can be confident their dirt will continue to belong to them. I don't want it, but I think we have to be honest about it. Your desire for safety is misguided though. The outcome of the US arming Australia is going to be China arming nations that the west doesn't like and a second cold war. Maybe conflict is inevitable when the super power must pass the torch, but I hope for humanity sake that it isn't nuclear. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6231 Posts
Did we have to be first? Probably not, but this is when the opportunity arose. They will take 20 years to build. I am out for now. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18049 Posts
On September 19 2021 14:16 Belisarius wrote: I don't disagree. I think we will get proliferation and a second cold war regardless, so for my tiny part, I would rather be on the list than off it. Did we have to be first? Probably not, but this is when the opportunity arose. They will take 20 years to build. I am out for now. The main problem is India. India is already on the brink of war with China and *really* won't take kindly to China arming nations within what it considers its own sphere of influence with nuclear (or other modern) weapons. The US interfering in Indo-Pacific affairs is partially because if they don't at least try to keep the peace then India may very well try that themselves, which will be a disastrous war for everyone. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On September 19 2021 11:34 Mohdoo wrote: France whining about getting beat is baffling to me. Seems embarrassing. No country is going to use something like honor or some bullshit to stick to a worse deal. Australia is going with the USUK because it is advantageous to them. They aren't going to make a sub-optimal decision just because "we had an agreement". Totally insane to see France publicly whining over this. There is a good G. Packer quote from his recent book on Holbrooke that goes something like this "The biggest weakness of the American foreign service is foreign countries". It's somewhere between depressing and entertaining that none in the state department figured that maybe France could be a useful friend long term in the region. They are a relatively rich European country with a blue water navy and a nuclear deterrent. They also have direct territorial interests in the pacific ocean, and more than 1 million citizens living there. But no let's go out of our way to piss them off as much as possible when forming this new alliance xd. Obviously for BoJo personally engineering a public spat with the frenchies is phenomenal politics (if not strategy). But for the Americans there is absolutely zero gain to be had from not being more tactful about this. I'm not saying that AUUKUS was a bad idea, just saying that from the American perspective going out of their way to piss the French off about it wasnt super smart. Then again this is the same State Department that thought North Vietnam would end up being Chinese allies just because they were communist xp. | ||
| ||
