United States To Lease Or Sell A Nuclear Submarine To Australia

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
I think it's more productive to discuss why the US decided to sell a Nuclear sub to Australia and how it will impact geo-politics in South East Asia. Somebody already mentioned that the noose is tightening around PRC. That is a more relevant question.

If we keep talking about irrelevant topics like Indian military base in Tajikistan, this thread will go down the drain.

In any event, we should also consider what role Australia might be aspiring to play, if at all, in the South China Sea. I doubt this sub will have nuke tipped missiles, but one does not really know. Australia is still British territory, de jure, and therefore, are entitled to British nukes anyway, and by British membership in NATO, could be technically entitled to a Nuke-Sharing Programme. Most importantly, the US can do whatever it wants and as long as it potentially keeps PRC in check, India should welcome it.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
US sells nuclear sub to Aussies to control Communist China
US ambassador indicates selling nuclear submarine to Australia for contronting China


2012-02-29 (wsws.org by Oliver Campbell) -- A front page article in the Australian Financial Review on February 22 reported that the US ambassador in Canberra, Jeffrey Bleich, has floated the possibility of Washington selling or leasing nuclear submarines to Australia—a first for any country.

While Defence Minister Stephen Smith restated the Labor Party's position that it would not consider the "nuclear option", the report is a further indication of Washington's moves to strengthen military ties with Australia as it aggressively confronts China. According to the Review, Bleich stressed that "Washington viewed Australia's subs program as crucial to security in the Asia-Pacific region."

Bleich's comments take place in the context of an ongoing discussion within Australian defence and foreign policy circles over the future of the country's crisis-prone Collins class submarine fleet. A government-commissioned review last December found that, at times, only one or two of the six diesel-electric submarines were available for service. It concluded that the fleet was "unfit for purpose".

In 2007, the former Liberal Howard government outlined a plan to replace the Collins submarines with a new Australian model of diesel-electric submarines. The Rudd Labor government's 2009 defence white paper proposed the local construction of a fleet of 12 new submarines to replace the Collins fleet in the long-term. The estimated cost would exceed $A30 billion and the submarines would not go into service until at least 2025.

The alternative of purchasing US nuclear submarines has been proposed by several prominent figures in the political establishment, including the foreign editor of Murdoch's Australian, Greg Sheridan, and Peter Reith, the former defence minister in the Howard government. The proposal has been justified on the grounds it would cost 30 to 50 percent less than building a new conventional fleet locally, and off-the-shelf American vessels could be put into operation far sooner. Nuclear submarines also have a number of military advantages over conventional models: they can remain submerged for longer periods, have a greater range due to extended intervals between refuelling, and can travel at a high speed for a greater length of time.

The notion of Australia acquiring nuclear submarines cannot be assessed apart from the US perspective of using the north and west of the continent as a key staging base for American military operations. This was unveiled by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and US President Barack Obama during his visit to the country in November. While the military agreements focussed on the stationing of 2,500 US marines in Darwin by 2016, far more regular visits by US warships and aircraft to Australia were also announced. The intention is to expand joint US-Australian operations in the Indian Ocean to assert strategic control over the sea lanes through South East Asia into the Pacific. The US would thus have the capacity to block critical shipping routes on which China depends to import energy and raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

Following Obama's visit, the initial recommendations of an Australian defence posture review were released in early February. Its authors outlined both shifting Australian military assets to the north and the need to upgrade various ports and airbases to enable greater use by US forces. The review specifically called for HMAS Stirling, a naval base near Perth, to be upgraded so that it could better support American nuclear submarines, and suggested the establishment of a new naval base in Brisbane to host nuclear-powered vessels. American nuclear warships are also cleared to dock at Darwin, Jervis Bay and Hobart.

US nuclear submarines already use HMAS Stirling on a periodic basis, but the base's facilities are tailored to meet the needs of the conventionally-powered Collins fleet. The Review article drew attention to one possible motive behind ambassador's Bleich suggestion. It noted: "Though the idea has been criticised as unworkable because Australia doesn't have a nuclear industry to support a nuclear submarine fleet defence sources suggest that the Australian fleet could be maintained at a US base in the Pacific Ocean or a US nuclear submarine base could be established in Australia." That is, the proposal could provide the rationale to construct a new facility on Australian territory jointly operated with the US military.


All these moves would be viewed in China as highly aggressive. The purchase or leasing of nuclear submarines would give the Australian navy the potential to mount aggressive operations in waters far from Australia, including in the Indian Ocean, the strategic straits through South East Asia and off the Chinese mainland. A US base in Australia would enhance the ability of American nuclear submarines to carry out such operations in the same areas.
On February 7, Professor Ross Babbage, a pro-US foreign policy analyst and founder of the right-wing Kokoda Foundation think-tank, prefigured the US ambassador's suggestion with comments to the Australian. He wrote: "Australia needs to consider purchasing 10-12 of the United States' latest nuclear-powered attack submarines in order to balance, offset and defer the dramatic expansion of China's military capabilities." Babbage claimed that "China's massive military build-up is clearly designed to force the US and its allies out of the Western Pacific." The Australian noted Babbage's view that "a combined force of Australian and US nuclear submarines sharing a base in Australia would send a very strong message to China's military leaders."

A layer of the Australian political establishment is deeply alarmed by the implications of the Gillard government's support for Washington's aggressive stance toward China. Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, contributed to the debate on new submarines with a column on February 7 in the Sydney Morning Herald. White wrote that "the US shield is no sure bet" as Chinese power increased and an "Asian century" dawned. He asserted that the Australian military needed an "independent capacity to defend the continent" and the country had to be "an independent middle power." He advocated the construction of a fleet of 18 to 24 Australian-built small diesel submarines that were not reliant on the US.

For now, the Labor government has restated its opposition to nuclear-powered submarines. Defence Minister Smith commented last week that "all options are being considered other than nuclear propulsion, which the government has ruled out." The Defence Department is reportedly in discussion with a number of European companies to develop a fleet of conventionally powered submarines, and is considering purchasing Japanese-designed and built vessels.

That stance could change, however. At its December 2011 national conference, the Labor Party ended its longstanding opposition to uranium sales to India, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The move, which was aimed at facilitating closer military ties between Canberra, New Delhi and Washington, followed a public call by Ambassador Bleich for the Australian government to do so.

Whether an Australian nuclear submarine fleet eventuates or not, the US ambassador's comments underscore the extent to which Australian capitalism has been drawn into a maelstrom of geo-political tensions.



Chariweb.com :: Critically China
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,330
Likes
11,874
Country flag
Aussies are such sissies. None of the aggression we see elsewhere especially on the cricket field is not visible in real life.
 

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
Aussies are such sissies. None of the aggression we see elsewhere especially on the cricket field is not visible in real life.
it is a geostrategic move, given China's posture.

It is more for the US than Australia.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,330
Likes
11,874
Country flag
it is a geostrategic move, given China's posture.

It is more for the US than Australia.
Off course it is.

Look at some of the reactions within Australia about wanting to keep out and not get sucked into what they consider a US china confrontation when they should fully know that China will be ruthless against Australia to secure its interests.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Aussies are such sissies. None of the aggression we see elsewhere especially on the cricket field is not visible in real life.
I wont say so..

There Military History is quite Interesting if you google..
 

Ray

The Chairman
New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,841
Off course it is.

Look at some of the reactions within Australia about wanting to keep out and not get sucked into what they consider a US china confrontation when they should fully know that China will be ruthless against Australia to secure its interests.
So, they should be Neville Chamberlain, right?

China will be ruthless, if not today, then tomorrow.

So, what would be a better choice?

Be ready to give a bloody nose or whimper back and surrender to the hordes?

Should they be like India?

Get embroiled in peace nonsense that gives no results and instead gives regular slights.

And then wake up to do a muddled modernisation that goes nowhere?

The adage goes - if you want Peace, be prepared for War!

We are buffeted all around and yet we have the pretensions to be a budding global power!

Too many Neville Chamberlains abound here in India.
 
Last edited:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,606
Look at some of the reactions within Australia about wanting to keep out and not get sucked into what they consider a US china confrontation when they should fully know that China will be ruthless against Australia to secure its interests.
Another issue is the response of non-nuclear New Zealand, I think.
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
^^

I am sure if NZ is invaded, Australia, UK, and most certainly, the US will jump to its rescue.

The Queen is the head of the states of Australia and NZ. PRC will surely think twice before doing anything silly. Moreover, PRC cannot stand antagonizing so many countries in the region and US backing these countries, even diplomatically, does not help matters.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,606
^^

I am sure if NZ is invaded, Australia, UK, and most certainly, the US will jump to its rescue.

The Queen is the head of the states of Australia and NZ. PRC will surely think twice before doing anything silly. Moreover, PRC cannot stand antagonizing so many countries in the region and US backing these countries, even diplomatically, does not help matters.
I agree, but will NZ object to an Australian nuclear sub, being anti-nuke as it is?
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
^^

Good question. In that case, they could do some fear mongering to mould the opinion of the public in NZ. What are politicians for? :)
 

s002wjh

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
1,271
Likes
155
Country flag
^^

I am sure if NZ is invaded, Australia, UK, and most certainly, the US will jump to its rescue.

The Queen is the head of the states of Australia and NZ. PRC will surely think twice before doing anything silly. Moreover, PRC cannot stand antagonizing so many countries in the region and US backing these countries, even diplomatically, does not help matters.
you forgot PRC don't use force to against aussie. aussie export are heavily depend on china. the reaons alot aussie don't want to get involved is because china can hurt aussie through economics. of course at this point there is no need to take dramatic action against australia, but if thing keep going further like this, china will do anything it can to stop australia helping US. most likely some kind economic solution. alot chinese investment are in australia, and china has quite a bit influence over their economy.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
That might go same for India..

Economic reason goes for even US..
 

apple

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
612
Likes
174
Apologies about the thread necromancy. But, just noticed this thread.

Basically, all your conjecture is wrong. Surprisingly enough, none of you seem familiar with Australian domestic politics ;-)

The newspaper that ran this story supports Australia acquiring nuclear power. About a year ago, when this story came out, the nuclear lobby was very active. There's a 0% chance of RAN getting anything nuclear. For a start, Sydney Harbour is Fleet Base East. If anything nuclear was permenantly stationed there the political party that allowed its existance would, at least, lose 1% (the real number would be much higher) of the vote in the Sydney i.e. ~50, 000 votes

In any event, we should also consider what role Australia might be aspiring to play, if at all, in the South China SeaSouth China Sea has been RAN's pond for 200 years. I doubt this sub will have nuke tipped missilesIt wont, but one does not really knowOne does. Australia is still British territory, de jureDe Jure's a fancy word. Are the same Pmaitra from Arrse?, and therefore, are entitled to British nukes anyway, and by British membership in NATOWhat?, could be technically entitledEntitled is not an Australian concept to a Nuke-Sharing ProgrammeGoogle Maralinga. That was 50+ years ago. Most importantly, the US can do whatever it wants and as long as it potentially keeps PRC in check, India should welcome it.Sure, we're all Allies

US sells nuclear sub to Aussies to control Communist China
US ambassador indicates selling nuclear submarine to Australia for contronting China


While Defence Minister Stephen Smith restated the Labor Party's position that it would not consider the "nuclear option", the report is a further indication of Washington's moves to strengthen military ties with Australia as it aggressively confronts China. According to the Review, Bleich stressed that "Washington viewed Australia's subs program as crucial to security in the Asia-Pacific region."[/url]
Aussies are such sissies. None of the aggression we see elsewhere especially on the cricket field is not visible in real life.
Seriously? Read a book. You're a moderator... Australian's made up 18% of the Commonwealth forces in Malaya 1941. We made up 80% of the battle casualties. Guess who made up the majority of the army, which was too cowardly to fight, in Malaya?

Australian's thank the Indian Artillery for the fine work they performed in Gallipoli in WW1.

I agree, but will NZ object to an Australian nuclear sub, being anti-nuke as it is?
They would, the Australian electorate would, but I wouldn't say that's the reason we're not going nuclear.
 

rusellviper89

New Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
31
Likes
30
We made up 80% of the battle casualties. Guess who made up the majority of the army, which was too cowardly to fight, in Malaya?
Who the hell you are calling a Coward British Indian army gave a good account of it self in both world wars kindly refrain from making such remarks. One should respect soldier's who fought a war which was not there own.
 
Last edited:

TrueSpirit

New Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
Anything irresponsible and illegal to give a nuke sub?

Russia has given one to India.

Irresponsible and illegal, is it?

@SPIEZ is talking about transfer of nuclear ballistic missiles like Polaris & Trident & cruise missiles with range in excess of 3000 km range, way beyond the limits prescribed by MTCR conventions. However, MTCR came into effect in 1987, while the Polaris/Trident missile transfers were completed before that. Coming to Tomahawk, transferred in 1995 for UK SSN's, was clearly in violation of spirit of MTCR. However, there are always loopholes in such treaties (clauses, which could be potentially worked around).

One recent example is the manner in which US is helping South Korea to develop (euphemism for transfer of critical technologies) missiles with range in excess of 800kms + and warheads above 500 kg. Both range & warhead weight violate MTCR, but all is good because US is claiming only technical assistance while S.Korea does indigenous development of the same.

Some people (read, entities & institutions) are always more equal than others, even in an equitable society, that such treaties try to enforce.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TrueSpirit

New Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
I wont say so..

There Military History is quite Interesting if you google..
Ok, this might sound OT but is not:

Kunal, while in a broader sense, it is correct to assume that Aussies are not sissies; but given their recent responses to multilateral exercises & war-games targeted at China, they indeed behaved as sissies.

This trend had started out in 80's, became more visibly pronounced in 90's & is climbing unprecedented levels in 21st century.

One really needs to follow their foreign policy pronouncements to understand the all-too-visible tilt the Aussies have, when it comes to PRC. Their heavy dependence on China for consumption of Aussie raw material emasculates them to the extent that they cannot be considered to be reliable partner in any multilateral agreement or military alliance against China.

In fact, Aussies can be safely counted out from any such alliance, for their special attention not to offend any Chinese sensibilities. You wouldn't find such overt obsequiousness & vocal deference for the PRC even in Indonesia or Malaysia. Their past military exploits cannot cover for their sissiness against PRC they have been displaying since last few decades.

Kangaroo's characteristic bravado & irreverent swagger notwithstanding, they are not the ones to be counted on, when it comes to taming/containing the dragon.
 
Last edited:

Articles

Top