|
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 |
United States24784 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 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.
Typically the fuel is loaded into the reactor within the ship around when the ship is first launched into the water.
When the fuel reaches end of of life it is pulled out of the reactor and, if desired, new fuel is loaded into the reactor. Note that a lot of people use "reactor core" and "reactor vessel" interchangeably which is not accurate for most naval reactor designs.
On September 19 2021 12:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
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.
As I mentioned yesterday, I find the source of the enriched uranium here incredibly interesting. There are many treaty limitations currently on who may enrich uranium using whose technology, and for what purposes. Obviously Australia isn't set up to do it and the USA isn't currently either, believe it or not.
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. As I mentioned above, there is a big difference between building the reactors (as in , the vessels and related equipment) and building the reactor cores. I assume based on what you said you are referring to manufacturing of the reactor core, which seems like a reasonable guess. Note however that preparing the uranium for use as fuel and building the reactor cores themselves are entirely independent, performed by different organizations, and have very different problems.
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. Older classes typically needed to be refueled one or more times. New classes generally have life-of-the-ship reactor cores. The Ford Class in the USA does not have a life of the ship core and each ship will be refueled once. The Virginia and Columbia Classes of submarines have life-of-the-ship core, as likely will the next generation attack submarine. The older Los Angeles Class requires refueling and recently the U.S. even decided to refuel some of the youngest ones a second time down the road to extend their lives and keep fleet numbers up.
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. Given how difficult nuclear fuel disposal is, Australia might be able to negotiate near-free and unlimited nuclear propulsion for their Navy if they agree to accept one spent fuel shipment alongside each new reactor core shipment! 
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. The reactor vessels are a little bigger than that... the cores are small though. I don't think the US/UK want to share submarine nuclear propulsion if that will require taking back spent fuel at the end of life, but... we'll see...?
On September 19 2021 13:05 LegalLord wrote:If nothing else they’ll get you on the maintenance contracts. Like so except several times the cost for having to fly out all the way to Australia to get the job done. 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.
the US/UK have already been sharing submarine propulsion technology and, generally, the US has not provided the UK with hands-on at-cost support like that. It's true though that the UK may be better positioned from the getgo to be more independent compared to Australia.
On September 19 2021 13:11 m4ini wrote:
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. Of note, the newer classes, including Virginia which you mention below, do not go into refueling overhaul since they have life-of-the-ship cores.
One thing to note: my guess is, they'll get re-designed (potentially monkey-model) Virginia class boats. Just to be clear, this has not been determined yet. It will be a while before the U.S. and Australia decide which technology to share and collaborate on. 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. The newest classes (in production) have all the features you are talking about, and more.
On September 19 2021 13:17 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2021 13:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: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. 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
The tricky part here is the treaty restrictions on use of uranium enriched via international partnerships. My guess is some of this will get renegotiated. If the U.S. just wants to stand up new enrichment capabilities and use it for US/Australia propulsion applications, they can... I'm not sure that's the best answer though.
|
|
|
United States24784 Posts
Nuclear powered submarines have sunk before, including two U.S. subs. Environmental monitoring showed that the impacts to the surrounding area were minimal in those particular cases. If a torpedo struck the reactor directly while the boat was floating in the harbor of a crowded city, the impact would be greater than the boat losing its control surfaces and plunging to the bottom of the deep ocean, falling apart en route.
edit: Russia used to sink their subs to disposes of them...
|
United States44203 Posts
On September 19 2021 23:19 JimmiC wrote:
From a environmsmtal out look are the advamtages and drawbacks similar to the sources of power for generation. Like nuclear "cleaner" but more dangerous for disposal/creation/accident?
And then since these are war vessels how bad is it for how much of the ovean if they get sunk, attacked, so on?
The ocean is pretty much the best place for radiation to go. There are two ways to deal with radioactive material, you can put it all in one place and never go there (abandoned mines) or you can spread it very finely everywhere so it’s no worse for you than being near basalt. Water is great at insulating radiation and the ocean is pretty big and pretty fluid. If you can’t convince China to only sink your subs when they’re at the bottom of a mine shaft then sinking them in the Pacific is best.
|
Radioactive material in the ocean? Do you want Godzilla? 'cause thats how we get Godzilla
|
Norway28874 Posts
With the rate animals are projected to go extinct, I guess we should do our best to speed up the creation of new ones?
|
|
|
United States24784 Posts
On September 20 2021 01:06 JimmiC wrote:
That sinking them to the bottom of the ocean or putting them really far down a mineshaft is a incitement that we currently don't have a good way of dealing with the waste and why environmentalists are not nearly as pro nuclear anything as many people are in this thread and engineering field.
There is a missing link in your argument here. I think you meant "indictment," but you didn't explain why it's an indictment.
|
|
|
United States24784 Posts
On September 20 2021 01:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 01:25 micronesia wrote:On September 20 2021 01:06 JimmiC wrote:
That sinking them to the bottom of the ocean or putting them really far down a mineshaft is a incitement that we currently don't have a good way of dealing with the waste and why environmentalists are not nearly as pro nuclear anything as many people are in this thread and engineering field. There is a missing link in you argument here. I think you meant "indictment," but you didn't explain why it's an indictment. I did, good old auto correct. The dilution is the solution to pollution has been the initial thought on how we would deal with all environmental issues from plastic, to air quality, it has always worked out as not a problem until it is a problem and then it is a massive problem we have no idea how to deal with. There is still a ton of countries servicing billions of people that just dump their garbage in the ocean, not to mention the crusieshits, and all of that. Generally, dilution is the solution to pollution is not being used in the examples you were referring to. A submarine at the bottom of the ocean contains the fuel within the reactor (excluding some exceptions like the one I mentioned earlier, potentially). A container of spent fuel at the bottom of a mine shaft (if properly designed) also contains the fuel.
There are examples where dilution is a fair argument. For example, diluting tritium into the deep ocean isn't really a problem since tritium quickly spreads out and reduces to lower concentrations until it is indistinguishable from the existing tritium already naturally in the ocean. Atmospheric weapons testing, on the other hand, cannot be defended the same way.
My thought and many environmentalists is this will be the same. Will that be next year or in 200 years I don't know but continually more and more will cause more and more problems, I don't know when the tipping point is but I'm not alone. I feel a lot better about the risks when it is to power a ton of households or whatever then when it is created a better killing machine. That's a fair point, but keep in mind most criticisms of the risk we accept are based on not understanding the nature and amount of risk, when it comes to anything nuclear. Emotions don't really drive effective decision making.
And on top of that with nuclear you always have the risk of catastrophe which of course is very small but the damage is extraordinarily large. Are you talking about nuclear propulsion, commercial nuclear, something else? Expanding the discussion to "let's throw out anti-nuclear catch phrases" isn't doing the original topic (AUKUS) any favors.
I have not done the math on the risk/reward or would even know the inputs so I'm not trying to put myself out there as some kind of expert. Just trying to understand why countries like New Zealand are not going to allow the subs in their waters and why they don't think swapping from Diesel to Nuclear is a win environmentally.
Fair enough.
|
|
|
On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all.
They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA?
|
Canada8036 Posts
On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA?
They just publicly lost a big contract. It's in their best interest to appear angry, whether they are or not. Why would they simply lie down and take it when they can salvage something from the wreckage?
The first reason is to reassure their countrymen that they are looking out for national interests. The electorate is important after all. I imagine they'd be crucified by the French media if they just waved it off.
The second reason is make clear their position - we are displeased, don't try us further. Recalling the ambassador implies that they are "serious". It bolsters their position in any future negotiations with the AUUKUS, and can be leveraged accordingly. Whether this is converted into a tangible benefit depends on how much any of the three countries values French cooperation.
So really, standard geopolitics.
|
On September 20 2021 06:26 Spazer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? They just publicly lost a big contract. It's in their best interest to appear angry, whether they are or not. Why would they simply lie down and take it when they can salvage something from the wreckage? The first reason is to reassure their countrymen that they are looking out for national interests. The electorate is important after all. I imagine they'd be crucified by the French media if they just waved it off. The second reason is make clear their position - we are displeased, don't try us further. Recalling the ambassador implies that they are "serious". It bolsters their position in any future negotiations with the AUUKUS, and can be leveraged accordingly. Whether this is converted into a tangible benefit depends on how much any of the three countries values French cooperation. So really, standard geopolitics.
Here's how I see it:
By using a temper tantrum, they are showing they have no actual cards to play. If they had leverage, they'd have used it. By throwing a fit, they showed their hand: weakness. I see it as them making a bad situation worse. It shows a complete lack of self awareness.
I guess if the electorate is just as insecure as their apparent leadership, it makes sense. I would feel embarrassed.
Do not try them further, or risk what? What is France gonna really do in response to losing contracts, declare war? On the US? LOL. I think it HURTS their position in any further negotiations because it shows they have nothing. If they take their ball and leave the playground, it represents the ultimate concession of power. Ultimately France needs to bend the knee. Its not like they have much going for them without the US and UK. The whole point of the last 50 years is that France relies on the US to be big daddy preventing them from being bullied by Russia. This fit just makes them appear whiny.
If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet
|
Canada8036 Posts
On September 20 2021 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 06:26 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? They just publicly lost a big contract. It's in their best interest to appear angry, whether they are or not. Why would they simply lie down and take it when they can salvage something from the wreckage? The first reason is to reassure their countrymen that they are looking out for national interests. The electorate is important after all. I imagine they'd be crucified by the French media if they just waved it off. The second reason is make clear their position - we are displeased, don't try us further. Recalling the ambassador implies that they are "serious". It bolsters their position in any future negotiations with the AUUKUS, and can be leveraged accordingly. Whether this is converted into a tangible benefit depends on how much any of the three countries values French cooperation. So really, standard geopolitics. Here's how I see it: By using a temper tantrum, they are showing they have no actual cards to play. If they had leverage, they'd have used it. By throwing a fit, they showed their hand: weakness. I see it as them making a bad situation worse. It shows a complete lack of self awareness.
Since when has self-awareness been relevant in geopolitics? A good chunk of it is posturing and saber rattling.
I guess if the electorate is just as insecure as their apparent leadership, it makes sense. I would feel embarrassed.
Yeah? Not like France is devoid of nationalism. What do you think the focus of US foreign policy has been in the last four years? Pandering to the electorate is not new.
Ultimately, what happens publicly is for show. We have no idea what discussions are actually happening in back channels.
Do not try them further, or risk what? What is France gonna really do in response to losing contracts, declare war? On the US? LOL. I think it HURTS their position in any further negotiations because it shows they have nothing. If they take their ball and leave the playground, it represents the ultimate concession of power. Ultimately France needs to bend the knee. Its not like they have much going for them without the US and UK. The whole point of the last 50 years is that France relies on the US to be big daddy preventing them from being bullied by Russia. This fit just makes them appear whiny.
If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet
Obviously they're not going to declare war. Don't be hyperbolic. The point is you can expect less French cooperation, at least in the short term. Maybe they'll be less inclined to participate in future military operations. Maybe they'll start sharing less information with the US. Maybe new policies will be implemented that are unfavorable to the US. Maybe they begin supporting new EU directives that are less friendly to American policies.
The most salient threat is that France becomes more open to China and Chinese technologies. The US is trying to consolidate its allies to stand against China - this is the whole point of AUUKUS. Has this deal affected how the French view the US vs China? How does the rest of the EU perceive this? If the US thinks there is a genuine possibility that this won't blow over, and that France or the EU will get a bit closer to China as a result, they will extend the olive branch. The potential cost of giving France a win is nothing compared to the strategic implications, even if the French are bluffing.
If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet
The US is capable of getting what they want no matter what. Everyone knows it. The problem is that it costs you political capital, and things become subtly harder. Soft power is valued for a reason.
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On September 20 2021 07:59 Spazer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2021 06:26 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? They just publicly lost a big contract. It's in their best interest to appear angry, whether they are or not. Why would they simply lie down and take it when they can salvage something from the wreckage? The first reason is to reassure their countrymen that they are looking out for national interests. The electorate is important after all. I imagine they'd be crucified by the French media if they just waved it off. The second reason is make clear their position - we are displeased, don't try us further. Recalling the ambassador implies that they are "serious". It bolsters their position in any future negotiations with the AUUKUS, and can be leveraged accordingly. Whether this is converted into a tangible benefit depends on how much any of the three countries values French cooperation. So really, standard geopolitics. Here's how I see it: By using a temper tantrum, they are showing they have no actual cards to play. If they had leverage, they'd have used it. By throwing a fit, they showed their hand: weakness. I see it as them making a bad situation worse. It shows a complete lack of self awareness. Since when has self-awareness been relevant in geopolitics? A good chunk of it is posturing and saber rattling. Show nested quote +
I guess if the electorate is just as insecure as their apparent leadership, it makes sense. I would feel embarrassed.
Yeah? Not like France is devoid of nationalism. What do you think the focus of US foreign policy has been in the last four years? Pandering to the electorate is not new. Ultimately, what happens publicly is for show. We have no idea what discussions are actually happening in back channels. Show nested quote +
Do not try them further, or risk what? What is France gonna really do in response to losing contracts, declare war? On the US? LOL. I think it HURTS their position in any further negotiations because it shows they have nothing. If they take their ball and leave the playground, it represents the ultimate concession of power. Ultimately France needs to bend the knee. Its not like they have much going for them without the US and UK. The whole point of the last 50 years is that France relies on the US to be big daddy preventing them from being bullied by Russia. This fit just makes them appear whiny.
If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet
Obviously they're not going to declare war. Don't be hyperbolic. The point is you can expect less French cooperation, at least in the short term. Maybe they'll be less inclined to participate in future military operations. Maybe they'll start sharing less information with the US. Maybe new policies will be implemented that are unfavorable to the US. Maybe they begin supporting new EU directives that are less friendly to American policies. The most salient threat is that France becomes more open to China and Chinese technologies. The US is trying to consolidate its allies to stand against China - this is the whole point of AUUKUS. Has this deal affected how the French view the US vs China? How does the rest of the EU perceive this? If the US thinks there is a genuine possibility that this won't blow over, and that France or the EU will get a bit closer to China as a result, they will extend the olive branch. The potential cost of giving France a win is nothing compared to the strategic implications, even if the French are bluffing. Show nested quote +If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet The US is capable of getting what they want no matter what. Everyone knows it. The problem is that it costs you political capital, and things become subtly harder. Soft power is valued for a reason.
Maybe the impact is negligible, but yeah.
We’ve got a deal involving the U.K., who are clearly looking some wins after untethering from the EU, and hey the US get in on the deal.
France has more influence than it did before via the U.K. leaving within the EU, which is a pretty huge bloc of influence.
Mohdoo’s conception of ‘yeah we did this what are you going to do about it?’ can easily by countered by ‘yeah the EU cut some deal with China what are you going to do about it?’
Yeah the U.K. is desperate for something to hang their hat on, Aus may have spheres of influence concerns re China that the US are willing to facilitate. I don’t think it’s some great bloodless foreign policy victory though, France have some considerable clout within Europe.after all.
|
On September 19 2021 09:24 micronesia wrote:
My point is, France was asking for money, the USA/UK is not. Therefore, the USA/UK didn't win any contract. I'm not 100% sure this is accurate which is why I'm asking.
If you are asking if there will be any transfers of money, that is undetermined as yet, but certainly there will be a monetary outflow from Australian government to US/UK companies or US/UK govenment entities if only due to Australia's lack of technical knowledge regarding these matters. I sincerely doubt USA will just transfer vast amounts of secret military technology to Australia for free.
|
On September 20 2021 08:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2021 09:24 micronesia wrote:
My point is, France was asking for money, the USA/UK is not. Therefore, the USA/UK didn't win any contract. I'm not 100% sure this is accurate which is why I'm asking. If you are asking if there will be any transfers of money, that is undetermined as yet, but certainly there will be a monetary outflow from Australian government to US/UK companies or US/UK govenment entities if only due to Australia's lack of technical knowledge regarding these matters. I sincerely doubt USA will just transfer vast amounts of secret military technology to Australia for free.
If The US and UK can cut off China's expansion, that is worth an incalculable amount of money. If they determined Australia being strong cuts off China's expansion in some way, they don't need a single dollar.
|
Nobody here seems to be even considering that it would be free. I highly doubt that's on the cards.
There's no numbers because there are no details yet, but the defense minister was signalling some kind of cost increase. There's a few optimistic rumours that it might turn out cheaper than the french deal, but it's still billions and billions of dollars. If Biden were handing this over gratis there would be a whole other level of back-slapping going on.
|
On France, while I support the new deal, I am very uncomfortable with how they were treated. I can absolutely understand why they are upset.
It's fair to say there were issues with the existing contract. There do seem to have been an alarming number of delays, disagreements and overruns, especially in such a short time, and we'd apparently been indicating we were unhappy for some time. Politico has a reasonable writeup:
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/
Questioned by a Senate committee about issues with the project, Australia's Defense Secretary Greg Moriarty said: "It became clear to me we were having challenges ... over the last 15 to 12 months." He said his government had been considering its options, including what it could do if it was "unable to proceed" with the French deal.
Moriarty's admission came after his government in April refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands. There were reports dating back to the beginning of this year that Canberra was seeking to walk away.
However, that doesn't give us the right to just flip them the bird. It's one thing to admit it's not working and take a better offer, but it's quite another to let the jilted party find out in the morning papers. That was a bridge that we had no reason to burn, and we will need it again in future.
I said this earlier, but the only explanation I can think of is that the US wanted France cut out to avoid them making a counter-offer. It does seem like the worst of France's ire is being directed towards the US. I can't see any reason that Australia would want radio silence - at the very least we could have taken a revised French offer back to Biden and tried to get even more.
Part of the problem is that Macron seems to have wanted France to take a real lead in Southeast Asia, and the previous deal was one of the centrepieces of that ambition. I never felt this was very realistic. Even with the sub deal intact our first alliegance was always going to be to the US/UK. France can't provide the same safety net as the US, and we are too closely tied via things like five eyes.
France was never going to be that friend, but we didn't need to screw them over like this. Neither did Biden. The days are long gone where America can just bully its allies and strut away. It will take all of us to even have a chance at keeping the PRC contained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
