Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AZProgressive

(29,322 posts)
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 08:33 PM Sep 2021

Nuclear 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 Australia’s 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.

It’s 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

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nuclear subs and a diplomatic blowup: The US-France clash, explained (Original Post) AZProgressive Sep 2021 OP
AUK-ward... n/t Moebym Sep 2021 #1
Why does France think the Aussies should choose WWll technology... brush Sep 2021 #2
Nuclear submarines are hardly standard; most of the world's navies don't use them Spider Jerusalem Sep 2021 #5
Is it an affordability issue? Nuclear-powered subs have performance advantages. brush Sep 2021 #6
Those performance advantages are not needed by most navies Spider Jerusalem Sep 2021 #9
Could it be the Aussies want to join the club? brush Sep 2021 #10
It's also a nuclear proliferation issue - fuel in subs cannot be inspected by the IAEA muriel_volestrangler Sep 2021 #13
Thanks for all the info. It sheds more light on France's ire. brush Sep 2021 #14
Why would you want yesterday's technology. How arrogant of France to tell the Aussies what they Demsrule86 Sep 2021 #15
So this is a tantrum over economics and a purchase? Pachamama Sep 2021 #3
Basically yes... Happy Hoosier Sep 2021 #8
It's always about the money. n/t Strelnikov_ Sep 2021 #4
So what exactly would France expect us to do? Silent3 Sep 2021 #7
The U.S. should have notified France what was going on. former9thward Sep 2021 #12
Nope...no doubt that would have blown up the deal...we don't owe France jobs that could come Demsrule86 Sep 2021 #16
Breaking up an alliance is not a good thing. former9thward Sep 2021 #17
There is also some issue between France and the UK over Migrants JI7 Sep 2021 #11

brush

(53,467 posts)
2. Why does France think the Aussies should choose WWll technology...
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 10:41 PM
Sep 2021

(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)
5. Nuclear submarines are hardly standard; most of the world's navies don't use them
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 11:26 PM
Sep 2021

the US, UK, France, Russia and China do (all five are declared nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council).

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
9. Those performance advantages are not needed by most navies
Sun Sep 19, 2021, 12:12 AM
Sep 2021

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).

muriel_volestrangler

(101,144 posts)
13. It's also a nuclear proliferation issue - fuel in subs cannot be inspected by the IAEA
Sun Sep 19, 2021, 03:57 AM
Sep 2021
So far, only the five nuclear weapons states recognised by the NPT - the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain - plus India, which has not signed the NPT, have deployed nuclear-powered submarines.

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/

Most non-proliferation advocates are not terribly worried about Australia building a nuke (it once sought one, but ended that pursuit in the 1970s). They are more concerned that the spread of nuclear-submarine technology and fuel for propulsion reactors sets a dangerous precedent that will be exploited by others. Countries that do want nuclear weapons, or simply want to keep the option open, might see submarines as a convenient excuse for making or acquiring bomb-usable heu, out of sight of pesky inspectors.

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)
14. Thanks for all the info. It sheds more light on France's ire.
Sun Sep 19, 2021, 05:14 PM
Sep 2021

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)
15. Why would you want yesterday's technology. How arrogant of France to tell the Aussies what they
Sun Sep 19, 2021, 05:48 PM
Sep 2021

can buy.

Pachamama

(16,873 posts)
3. So this is a tantrum over economics and a purchase?
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 10:51 PM
Sep 2021

The French didn’t 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)
8. Basically yes...
Sun Sep 19, 2021, 12:06 AM
Sep 2021

They tried to pull the same stuff back during the tanker selection, going to bat for Airbus. Didn't work then either.

Silent3

(15,018 posts)
7. So what exactly would France expect us to do?
Sat Sep 18, 2021, 11:38 PM
Sep 2021

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)
12. The U.S. should have notified France what was going on.
Sun Sep 19, 2021, 12:48 AM
Sep 2021

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)
16. Nope...no doubt that would have blown up the deal...we don't owe France jobs that could come
Sun Sep 19, 2021, 05:50 PM
Sep 2021

here. It is good thing for country.

former9thward

(31,798 posts)
17. Breaking up an alliance is not a good thing.
Sun Sep 19, 2021, 05:56 PM
Sep 2021

How many times has France pulled its ambassadore since the U.S. was formed? Never. Now it has.

JI7

(89,172 posts)
11. There is also some issue between France and the UK over Migrants
Sun Sep 19, 2021, 12:17 AM
Sep 2021

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nuclear subs and a diplom...