General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNuclear subs and a diplomatic blowup: The US-France clash, explained
France recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia on Friday in protest of Australias decision to cancel a major defense deal in favor of a new one with the US and Britain.
The dramatic move caps a week of indignation for France, which described the new US-UK-Australia deal as a stab in the back on Thursday, and represents a major diplomatic break between longtime allies.
Its also the first time that France has recalled its ambassador to the US, according to Bloomberg News, and it comes after French officials canceled a Washington, DC, gala scheduled for Friday.
The new US-UK-Australia deal, which was announced on Wednesday by the leaders of the three countries, lays the groundwork for Australia to acquire at least eight nuclear submarines with support from the US and the UK. According to Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, it also marks the first major initiative of a tripartite new security agreement between the countries under the acronym AUKUS (pronounced AWK-us, according to the AP).
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2021/9/18/22680875/france-us-australia-ambassadors-nuclear-subs-explained
Moebym
(989 posts)brush
(53,467 posts)(diesel subs) over long-time modern naval standard technology (nuclear subs)?
This doesn't make sense? And why did Australia agree to that in the first place?
Is France also manufacturing battleships and prop fighter planes?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the US, UK, France, Russia and China do (all five are declared nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council).
brush
(53,467 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the main one is the ability to spend long periods at sea without refuelling; this is useful for, say, ballistic missile submarines that function as part of a nation's nuclear deterrent if it has one (which is a pretty small club, and most countries aren't in it).
brush
(53,467 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,144 posts)For a party to the NPT other than the so-called P5 to have nuclear submarines poses a challenge because they are military vessels that are designed to be undetectable and would often be beyond the reach of IAEA inspectors. It is, however, possible in principle to temporarily exclude submarine reactor fuel from IAEA safeguards if a prior agreement is reached with the body.
The IAEA said in a statement the trio had informed it "that a critical objective of this cooperation will be to maintain 'the strength of both the nuclear non-proliferation regime and Australia's exemplary non-proliferation credentials' and that they will be 'engaging with the IAEA throughout the coming months'."
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/australia-uk-us-plan-engage-with-iaea-over-nuclear-submarines-2021-09-16/
Iran, whose nuclear programme is the subject of an increasingly tense dispute with the West, has toyed with the idea in the past. South Korea, which faces a North Korean nuclear threat, and where opinion polls show plurality support for building nuclear weapons, has explored nuclear subs off and on since the early 1990s. Brazil is actually building one, the Álvaro Alberto, as part of a partnership with France. With the new aukus decision, we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards, warns Sébastien Philippe of Princeton University, writing for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a research group.
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does-the-australian-submarine-deal-mean-for-non-proliferation
brush
(53,467 posts)I mean since France also builds nuclear subs the Aussies could've stuck with them if they wanted nuclear subs instead of diesel.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)can buy.
Pachamama
(16,873 posts)The French didnt get the money and are mad?
Hardly a reason to create diplomatic crisis
There is an election coming up
.this will be forgotten soon enough
just some drama and show.
Happy Hoosier
(7,068 posts)They tried to pull the same stuff back during the tanker selection, going to bat for Airbus. Didn't work then either.
Strelnikov_
(7,772 posts)Silent3
(15,018 posts)Australia was clearly unhappy with their previous deal with France, with good reason apparently, and wanted to shop for better subs elsewhere.
What's the US supposed to? Tell Australia, sorry, we couldn't possibly upset France by selling you the better atomic subs you really want, you'll just have to settle for the much-delayed, cost-overrunning diesel subs from France instead?
former9thward
(31,798 posts)France is an ally and allies don't stab each other in the back. France found out about the deal from the news. Not from any communication from the U.S. A real diplomatic blunder by the U.S.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)here. It is good thing for country.
former9thward
(31,798 posts)How many times has France pulled its ambassadore since the U.S. was formed? Never. Now it has.
JI7
(89,172 posts)Not sure how much this has to do with it though. Not the issue specifically but more about the tensions between the 2 sides where unrelated issues can play a role.