“Why does Australia need $90 billion worth of nuclear submarines? “
For the same reason cops need to rough up niggas who get too uppity and militias must be disarmed: When all wealth and power is stolen from the slaves who created it; the ability to loot, and to prevent revolting slaves from taking their stuff back, becomes all that matters. Hence ever increasing militarization, under guise of ever taller tales about all the scary hobgoblins “we the idiots who live off of Fed theft” must protect our poor slaves from.
The Mujahideen kick anybody’s rear. Nuke subs or not. And it costs them all of 50 bucks. That’s all the defense America, and anybody else, ever needed, as the Founders knew very well.
Of course, as the Vichy leeches who just hightailed it out of Kabul with as much stolen loot as they could fit realized, that sort of proper defense, isn’t compatible with living off of theft and theft only. So, civilian disarmament, $90billion submarines, childish nonsense about “gun control,” dead niggas and “billionaires” off of Fed theft who can’t read, is what the progressive experiment in demonstrating that all property really is theft nets us instead.
Doug78
2 years ago
As an aside Spacex’s putting four people in an orbit higher than any human has gone since 2009 and keeping them there for three days makes Jeff Bezos and Richard Bronson look like a wimps big time.
One of them needs to build a real space station, not a sad effort like the hokey ISS. I’m talking a station 5-10 miles in diameter with interconnected spokes like in the SF movies that spins so they have gravity around the outside (which would decrease to the very middle).
Once we have a real space station, it can be used to manufacture ships that don’t need to fight Earth gravity to get into space, which will be cheaper and quicker to build. There can be permanent research, observation and much more.
It’s a no-brainer, so why hasn’t it been done (or at least designed)?
It hasn’t been done till now because you needed someone with
vision and a lot of money. Bureaucratic government organizations by nature take
a timid, low risk strategy because they are afraid of being criticized. Musk on the other hand has a different
strategy and that is to take risks, blow up rockets to get data and basically
just do it. Funny, Bezos and Bronson with space have the same timid approach.
We will get there and are on the way.
P.S. Imagine what happens to the price of gold when it can be mined as a waste product from asteroids in near-Earth orbits.
Yes, that is the same explanation/rational I have heard for decades that I have been making the same post. Such a station would also be a strategic military asset, for space training, development of weapons and with proper reentry vehicles, the ability to respond to military events on Earth much faster and easier. It would also make it easier to build a Moon base.
We always wait until someone starts doing something for us to jump in. We built the atom bomb because we were afraid that Germany was building one. We went into space because the Russians got there first. China has said they are shooting for building a Moon base, so now we are interested in building a base there. We never seem to learn, never seem to get out in front until goaded by another nation.
Re: Gold -> Diamonds also. Which is why we should be trying to get settled in the asteroid belt and mine it.
We are out in front. We have reusable rockets now and nobody else does which makes our costs very much lower. In just four years SpaceX’s market share of satellite launches have blown out of the water all others. Before France’s Ariane 5 had the highest market share. Now they are way behind. Russia is basically out. China is better and they do have their own space staion but their costs are really high. SpaceX’s new Starship is the biggest rocket ever made and will put much more and at the least cost in orbit and beyond. It will put 100 metric tons into orbit in one shot and it is reusable.
5-10 miles in diameter would take centuries to build if we built 100 meters (300 ft) a year and 300 feet a year would be incredibly ambitious.
Also you’d have to build such a station at least half way or further to the moon because if something happened to it (meteor strike, other catastrophe) and it fell to earth it would be an extinction event on the order of the size of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.
In other words we will never even attempt to build such a thing.
Such a station doesn’t have the density of an asteroid of similar size. Much of it would burn up before hitting ground if something did happen to it.
To build it they would have to mine materials from the moon or corral asteroids, which might be considered a bit dangerous. It would be too expensive to drag all the materials up from Earth. Another advantage I didn’t mention is that once such a station existed, we could build a space elevator that attached to it, making visits to space as simple as a long elevator ride!
Contact me me Musk. I am available for consultations.
I’ve read plenty of SF stories involving populations living on some sort of cylinder or carved out asteroids. Here’s hoping Musk/Bezos has read similar and antes up to take this bull by the horns and create version 1.
RonJ
2 years ago
“Australia only has 6 submarines. It wants 12 new nuclear ones.”
At least they will be greenhouse gas compliant. Will they be populated with social equity crews?
njbr
2 years ago
How’s an Aussie going to run a boat with instructions in French??
Or maybe because…
….That August, before the Australian deal was formally signed but after it had been announced, the company DCNS admitted it had been hacked after 22,000 documents relating to the combat capacity of its Scorpene submarines being built in India wereleaked, raising concerns about the security of its Australian project….
….The project was meant to cost 50 billion Australian dollars (€31 billion). But that figure has since almost doubled. At last count, the cost of the program was around 90 billion Australian dollars (€56 billion). And that’s before the government factored in the cost of maintenance — which in November 2019, the department of defense told a Senate committee would set Canberra back a further 145 billion Australian dollars (€90.1 billion) over the life of the subs….
….Australia urgently needed new subs to replace its six aging Collins-class submarines, which were slated for retirement in 2026. Without subs, Australia would be left vulnerable at a time of increasing tension with China. But the first Barracuda couldn’t be delivered until 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s….
Bam_Man
2 years ago
“I fart in your general direction.”
Corvinus
2 years ago
“The WSJ notes the move marked the first time that France recalled its ambassador to the U.S. in their nearly two and half centuries of diplomatic relations.”
Believe me when I say that I’d really like to move on from Trump, but as so many obsessed Trump critics here seem to not be able to let it go I just wanted to ask the obvious question.
Wasn’t one of the the many apparent reasons for all the pearl clutching, harsh criticism, and accusations of obvious lunacy in Trump the fact that he “offended our NATO allies”? Just saying.
In pre-social media times the ambassadors would not have
been withdrawn but keep in mind that Macron and his advisors are in the 35-45
year old range and believe that reality is subservient to appearance and if one
can manipulate it well enough then appearance becomes reality.
Over here many now prefer Trump’s direct style to Biden’s deceptive and evasive style.
Webej
2 years ago
The Chinese and Russians aren’t building diesel electrics for nothing!
Largely missed in the reporting is that the US will be sorta merging with Australia, using their bases, confusing which subs are nuclear armed, etc. NATO capers (nuclear weapons ‘stored’ by allies) and acceptance of Israel’s nukes have blurred the line on non-proliferation, as well as the US refusal to even attend meetings about denuclearization, making them the sole exception allowed to use and keep nuclear weapons in perpetuity. Anticipate more blurring of non-proliferation lines in the future.
Doug78
2 years ago
It would be better to compare countries that have submarines
with nuclear propulsion to give a better idea.
US – 68 (14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, 54 other nuclear-powered attack submarines)
Russia – 29 (11 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, 18 other nuclear-powered attack submarines)
China – 12 (6 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, 6 other nuclear-powered attack submarines)
UK – 11 (4 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, 7 other nuclear-powered attack submarines)
France – 8 (4 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, 4 other nuclear-powered attack submarines)
India – 1 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
In this list France is on the same rung as the UK so you can
see how it would hurt their pride and the French are known to be very touchy even
if they understand Australia’s reasoning. If I want to predict I would say that
Biden will try to bring in the French as a junior partner. The contract was in
trouble already, that’s not a secret, and the correct way would be to allow
them to save face which is what you do with allies. By no means is losing a big
contract is something new but generally there are ways to smooth it over. Why they
didn’t do it I have no idea. Maybe there was no way to make it well and Macron
is in an election cycle and needed the publicity. Additionally Eric Zemour, who
predicted that the US would throw France to the dogs is breathing down his neck
from an electoral point of view.
I live in France so I can definitely say that not only is
the French government pissed off but the common people also. The funny thing is
that they understand why the Australians would prefer American equipment and
have a close cooperation. Anyone with an eye can see that. They are pissed off
on how it was done and that it lacked a certain “savoir vivre”. There are ways
of breaking bad news to a close ally but learning about it just before an
Australian newspaper breaks the story is not one of them. That is the man on
the street view. On the other hand we are hearing incredibly stupid comments
from politicians and pundits like French military equipment is the best in the
world. They do have some good equipment without a doubt but blanket statements
like that are ridiculous. Some also claimed that Germany helped scuttle the
deal because of jealousy and because France refused to share with them France’s
aeronautical expertise. That last part is true but Germany is above silly squabbles
like that… or are they?
Another thing is that the French felt that they helped the
Democrats because they trashed Trump at every chance they got and that
consequently they expected to be treated right by Biden. They got a cold
shower.
For Australia it was a no-brainer once the UK and the US
decided to invite them into the agreement on sharing military nuclear
technology. That agreement was made between the UK and the US in the early
1950’s and since then no other country has been invited in so we have to look
at it as the milestone that it is. China if they wanted to might possibly do a
remake of Japan in the beginning of WW II and threaten Australia again so they
want the ally that can help them the most and that ally is not France which
doesn’t have the capability nor the blood and cultural ties that the US has. As
I said above it was the way the contract was ruptured and not that it was.
Nevertheless the consequences are there and for the umpteenth time the French
government is saying it will have to review its alliances. They would like to
but the choice is more limited now than 20 years ago. Another matter is that if
the UK had still been in the EU the Australia-UK-US pact would have been much
more difficult to set up.
FromBrussels
2 years ago
the US got very reliable stuff like their extremely accurate drones causing more collateral damage than Napoleon’s canons did….
FromBrussels
2 years ago
North Korea ! is the ‘winner’….some of them on coal it must be said, the most reliable ones though, have oars propulsion….
Scooot
2 years ago
It highlights to me the seriousness of the tensions in the region. It seems the French haven’t grasped this and are more concerned with the cancellation of their deal.
Michael Francis
2 years ago
New Zealand, with its current ban on anything Nuclear, have banned any Australian Nuclear submarine from entering its waters.
RunnerDan
2 years ago
Well, Macron shouldn’t have voted for Biden! You get what you vote for…
didn’t have time to read the article, but sooner or later france had to come out against our subs. subway is and always has been the best. and then we have so many others. if they can’t make a sub right, they can just ask us how it’s done.
astroboy
2 years ago
I suspect Australia (and Vietnam, Korea, the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Indonesia) view China’s grab of the South China Sea as a direct threat. As they should. Selling a dozen nukes to Taiwan would make the situation even more unstable. With Australia getting the nukes you have the same benefits of being able to wipe out the Chinese navy without giving Xi the excuse to invade Taiwan.
There are vast differences in the quality of subs of the West vs. other nations, the number of subs is meaningless. A lot of subs showing up on the books might was well have screen doors.
astroboy
2 years ago
I think what is comes down to is that France isn’t part of the Five Eyes: US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, that share more intelligence and technology than they do with anyone else. France just doesn’t enjoy that level of trust. Whether that’s just or not is another question….
I suspect that there were worries about where technology secrets might end up if France was in on the deal. Or, just as likely, France couldn’t deliver the subs within the time that Australia and the other Eyes thought was necessary. It’s not easy to build a nuclear sub. If Wiki is to be trusted France has built only one nuclear sub in the past decade. Hard to imagine them knocking off a dozen without breaking a sweat.
Also, if I understand correctly, the deal with France was for non-nuclear submarines. Big difference between a nuke and anything else.
Siliconguy
2 years ago
“but until then the US nuclear submarines could make calls in Australia’s ports to dock and refill ”
That statement is one puzzle. I was on a submarine and we docked in Perth/Fremantle twice on two different West-Pacs. Unless they stopped sometime between then and now, that is no change.
The other puzzle is why the Aussies wanted the US involved at all. The British have perfectly fine nuclear submarines of their own. They don’t need us to build them. Maybe the British do not have enough enrichment capacity to fuel that many boats that fast while keeping up with their own?
The country that needs nuclear submarines more is Canada. Their Arctic coast is undefended. That assumes you think Putin is an actual threat.
I don’t see Canada having the ability to stand-up to Russia, no matter how many subs they might have. This is where they should contract to the US. We have a military with less work to do sinc ewe pulled out of Iraq & Afghanistan and an MI-Complex to feed!
Stay Informed
Subscribe to MishTalk
You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.
vision and a lot of money. Bureaucratic government organizations by nature take
a timid, low risk strategy because they are afraid of being criticized. Musk on the other hand has a different
strategy and that is to take risks, blow up rockets to get data and basically
just do it. Funny, Bezos and Bronson with space have the same timid approach.
In pre-social media times the ambassadors would not have
been withdrawn but keep in mind that Macron and his advisors are in the 35-45
year old range and believe that reality is subservient to appearance and if one
can manipulate it well enough then appearance becomes reality.
It would be better to compare countries that have submarines
with nuclear propulsion to give a better idea.
In this list France is on the same rung as the UK so you can
see how it would hurt their pride and the French are known to be very touchy even
if they understand Australia’s reasoning. If I want to predict I would say that
Biden will try to bring in the French as a junior partner. The contract was in
trouble already, that’s not a secret, and the correct way would be to allow
them to save face which is what you do with allies. By no means is losing a big
contract is something new but generally there are ways to smooth it over. Why they
didn’t do it I have no idea. Maybe there was no way to make it well and Macron
is in an election cycle and needed the publicity. Additionally Eric Zemour, who
predicted that the US would throw France to the dogs is breathing down his neck
from an electoral point of view.
I live in France so I can definitely say that not only is
the French government pissed off but the common people also. The funny thing is
that they understand why the Australians would prefer American equipment and
have a close cooperation. Anyone with an eye can see that. They are pissed off
on how it was done and that it lacked a certain “savoir vivre”. There are ways
of breaking bad news to a close ally but learning about it just before an
Australian newspaper breaks the story is not one of them. That is the man on
the street view. On the other hand we are hearing incredibly stupid comments
from politicians and pundits like French military equipment is the best in the
world. They do have some good equipment without a doubt but blanket statements
like that are ridiculous. Some also claimed that Germany helped scuttle the
deal because of jealousy and because France refused to share with them France’s
aeronautical expertise. That last part is true but Germany is above silly squabbles
like that… or are they?
Another thing is that the French felt that they helped the
Democrats because they trashed Trump at every chance they got and that
consequently they expected to be treated right by Biden. They got a cold
shower.
For Australia it was a no-brainer once the UK and the US
decided to invite them into the agreement on sharing military nuclear
technology. That agreement was made between the UK and the US in the early
1950’s and since then no other country has been invited in so we have to look
at it as the milestone that it is. China if they wanted to might possibly do a
remake of Japan in the beginning of WW II and threaten Australia again so they
want the ally that can help them the most and that ally is not France which
doesn’t have the capability nor the blood and cultural ties that the US has. As
I said above it was the way the contract was ruptured and not that it was.
Nevertheless the consequences are there and for the umpteenth time the French
government is saying it will have to review its alliances. They would like to
but the choice is more limited now than 20 years ago. Another matter is that if
the UK had still been in the EU the Australia-UK-US pact would have been much
more difficult to set up.