US and UK to now furnish Australia with nuclear submarines.

The US needs to make some more neutron weapons. Military simulations indicate that they are probably the only answer to China's ability to throw cannon fodder at any conflict. Incredible to think Macarthur might have been right when he called on nuking the Chinese forces in the Korean conflict.

The question is why are they expanding their military.

There are obviously local territorial disputes. But the main driver would seem to protect its overseas interests.

"....

Turbulence, terrorism, and piracy, as well as natural disasters and epidemics in some areas, have posed threats to China’s overseas interests. The changing international arena is forcing the country to rethink its strategies. According to “The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed Forces,”

With the gradual integration of China’s economy into the world economic system, overseas interests have become an integral component of China’s national interests. Security issues are increasingly prominent, involving overseas energy and resources, strategic sea lines of communication, and Chinese nationals and legal persons overseas. Vessel protection at sea, evacuation of Chinese nationals overseas, and emergency rescue have become important ways and means for the PLA to safeguard national interests and fulfill China’s international obligations.47

The latest white paper onChina’s Military Strategy lists safeguarding “the security of the country’s overseas interests” and its “security and interest in new domains” as a strategic task to be shouldered by its armed forces.48

China’s use of its military in evacuation operations shows growing capability and confidence in that capability. While some might view China’s increasing use of its military overseas as a threat, China sees it as a necessity. Furthermore, as China expands its overseas interests abroad, the Chinese government and military are forced to increase their involvement. China is taking steps that indicate the PLA will become increasingly more active in the evacuation of its citizens overseas, which means that it will most likely also increase its presence in other ways overseas. The question is, how far will it go?..."

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2017/Compelling-Reasons-for-the-Expansion-of-Chinese-Military-Forces/

It would seem to run counter to the current affairs forum charter. Seems more appropriate for after hours or the conspiracy forum.

Though its an interesting news piece if it was posted on its own.

Sorry, but that's BS. Building something to NATO standard does not automatically mean it's nuclear capable. Case in point is the F/A-18 Super Hornet order that the Luftwaffe just placed. They're fully NATO compatible, obviously, but will require significant modifications to be able to carry the B-61 nuclear bombs based in Germany under NATO's Nuclear Sharing program.

It's the same for submarines. Just because a boat can fire standardised NATO weapons, that does not mean it is automatically able to deploy nukes. First of all, there's the command-and-control side of things. Even with the US' lax attitude to nuclear weapons control in the past, they won't just allow an ally to store any nuclear-tipped cruise missiles next to regular torpedoes, especially since torpedo rooms are often used as extra berthing on subs. So there'll need to be a specialised storage area for nuclear weapons, which will further constrain the already limited space within a submarine's pressure hull. That compartment will need to be access controlled so that the weapons can only be launched after proper authorisation. The submarine will require the necessary communication and authentication system, and any nuclear weapons would likely be subject to the SIOP or whatever the US call it nowadays, meaning that Australia wouldn't have operational control over such weapons in the first place.

Imagine, Imagine that when the Border poll comes that the option for N.I to declare independence is an option and wins?

The adoption of Northern Irish as an identity is just as valid an identity as Irish or British and if they chose to go their own way are you going to rail against UN recognition for them?

Taiwan is a country, It has long been and the Realpolitik of the 1china policy is the only reason that it is being held in abeyance.

Listen to yourself, dismissing the right of people and nations to self determination.

Lol you try to make it out as if the US and UK are the “ Good Guy “ of the world.

Takes one to know one etc. If it looks like a duck its probably a duck etc.

Unfortunately China's own record isn't fantastic. There no one with the moral high ground. Not the West, and not China.

What was once considered as an absolute no go is making perfect sense in a near future conflict ,

Someone else was talking about aircraft carriers ,China wants something like 10 in the next few years ,but running and operating a single or several carrier groups is no easy task , especially when your going up against countries who have being fighting from aircraft carriers for the last 70+ years Vs a country who's only recently decided that they were going to have multiple carrier groups ,

Russia has struggled with carrier operations for decades suddenly everyone thinks China is the top dog

Give us a link to the NATO spec for nuclear weapons and submarines. This 'meant' in relation to diesel subs is an odd way of putting ir. Australia isthe customer and originally 'asked' for diesel powered subs like the existing Collins, so of course that is what they were meant to do. There is nothing wrong with them reappraising the mission requirements and changing their minds.

The infrastructure to conduct nuclear enrichment and the latter processes necessary to handle and produce nuclear fuel rods would likely cost more than the sub contract. The WSJ has this headline: America’s Self-Imposed Uranium Shortage".

If Australia wanted nuclear weapons it could develop them from scratch. No need for anyone getting their feathers all ruffled any more than if they announced they were planning on a nuclear power station, which would be no one's business but theirs.

This is not a nuclear weapons proliferation issue and there is no such angle to this, it is merely about whether the electricity to operate the submarines motors is generated by burning diesel fuel or splitting some atoms.

But some people need the sensational headlines to add look at what America did now !

Leaving aside the geopolitics for a moment, Australia have made a serious fiscal error in all this.

They had 4 diesel-electric subs on order from a French builder, who actually planned to construct them in South Australia. Those have now been cancelled and inevitably Australia will have to pay massive compensation to the builder.

Then, because Australia has no domestic nuclear industry, save one tiny research reactor in Sydney, it has already been stated by the US and UK that they will supply nuclear attack subs to Oz and also look after the nuclear engineering, presumably requiring frequent trips to the west coast of the US. That is a massively inefficient commitment for men and resources in a comparitively small navy like Australia.

What Australia should have done, was proceed with the 4 new diesel boats and instead provided hardened bases for American nuclear attack subs in the north of Australia, in a similar arrangement to Japan and the Philippines.

In fact, by the time this is digested politically in Australia, that is far more likely to be the actual outcome.