learnt from overseas media we are not letting Aussie nuclear sub in

Forums › Off topic › learnt from overseas media we are not letting Aussie nuclear sub in

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780221 18-Sep-2021 13:13

cshwone:

If you look here: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/submarines-by-country

You can see there are submarines in every corner of the globe.

For the Australian's having nuclear powered hunter killers is an extremely sensible decision.

north korea has the most. great.

PaulL

91 posts

Master Geek

#2780225 18-Sep-2021 13:21

Fred99:

Hasn't this been discussed in multiple other threads on GZ? Consensus always seems to have been that it's a great big nope.

Even Australia - probably the best place in the world to dump reactor waste - can't find a politically palatable solution for dealing with the small amount of waste produced at Lucas Heights.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/appendices/radioactive-waste-repository-store-for-australia.aspx

Perhaps. I wasn't suggesting though that we build nuclear power plants in NZ, although I think the time will come when we do. I'm just suggesting that other nations' nuclear powered ships aren't actually a risk to us, so there's no real reason to ban them from our ports.

As for nuclear waste, the newer generations of nuclear power plant burn the waste from the old ones - older plants use about 3% of the uranium, the newer fuel cycles use more like 97%. Which reduces the amount of high level waste a lot.

You're right, it's politically massively difficult. As are many things. But scientifically it's not particularly difficult, it's the bit where people believe science that's the problem. And that's not really uncommon.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2780229 18-Sep-2021 13:32

cshwone: They offer advantages such as faster underwater speed, not fuel limited and endurance well beyond the conventional fleets.

This was true in the 1950's when nuclear submarines were first commissioned. It's less true now.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2780234 18-Sep-2021 13:42

Fred99:

The cunning plan is for Australia to be the only nation to have nuclear subs without nukes - the main purpose of nuclear subs these days is as a tactical nuclear weapon SLBM delivery system to evade missile defence systems - because they can sneak up close to the target. Other military reasons for superpowers having fleets of subs have been redundant for decades.

You should get in touch with the UK MOD before they spend any more money on the Astute replacement - they could do with an expert like you

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2780236 18-Sep-2021 13:48

PaulL:

You're right, it's politically massively difficult. As are many things. But scientifically it's not particularly difficult, it's the bit where people believe science that's the problem. And that's not really uncommon.

It's funny, isn't it that we keep being told we can't argue with the science on climate change (and I'm not, BTW), but then our dear leader takes an irrational, anti-science view on nuclear power and GMOs - both of which could be a significant help in counteracting CC - and we can't challenge that.

I'm not trying to trivialise the challenges of nuclear power, but "just saying no" is getting old

PaulL

91 posts

Master Geek

#2780240 18-Sep-2021 13:49

gzt:
cshwone: They offer advantages such as faster underwater speed, not fuel limited and endurance well beyond the conventional fleets.

This was true in the 1950's when nuclear submarines were first commissioned. It's less true now.

Less true and not true are different things. Specifically in the case of Australia, their problem is the place they want to deploy their submarines is a long way from their base. Partially because Australia is a really big place, and partially because they want to deploy near China. The French conventional submarines are very large for their type, and have relatively good endurance - so closer to a nuclear submarine than earlier conventional submarines. For the French, who mostly deploy them around Europe (which is a small place with a small coastline, relatively speaking), they're excellent.

For Australia, the reality is that the use they want is quite marginal with the French ones. The contract also isn't going so well (military contracts often don't), but they have opportunity to terminate at the moment, so they're taking it. If they can just buy US submarines pretty much off the shelf, they'd do everything they want and more, and for less than they were spending on French submarines that are about half the size and with a fraction of the endurance. Nuclear submarines will remain relevant (in submarine terms) for a long time. Conventional submarines against China won't be relevant pretty quickly - they'd potentially be obsolete for their intended purpose before they've even finished building them.

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#2780243 18-Sep-2021 14:02

Oz is going to insist on a technology transfer so the subs can be built in Oz .
Ala Steyr aug, meko frigates, etc etc.
This is going to cost them big time to set all that up.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2780246 18-Sep-2021 14:29

PaulL: Conventional submarines against China won't be relevant pretty quickly - they'd potentially be obsolete for their intended purpose before they've even finished building them.

Both clauses of your proposition are false. US Navy analysts have made a case that modern diesel electric submarines are a better option for operations related to the littoral environment of the South China sea than nuclear vessels.

You can build 12 for the price of one nuclear propelled vessel, and that's only one of the advantages.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2780249 18-Sep-2021 14:42

PaulL: I'm just suggesting that other nations' nuclear powered ships aren't actually a risk to us, so there's no real reason to ban them from our ports.

New Zealand has a longstanding policy against nuclear proliferation extending through all NZ governments regardless of party. It makes perfect sense in this context. In terms of accident risk it's low but it only takes one. We don't want one. Coincidentally, US Naval accidents are at a high point recently for some reason.

PaulL

91 posts

Master Geek

#2780258 18-Sep-2021 15:08

gzt:
New Zealand has a longstanding policy against nuclear proliferation extending through all NZ governments regardless of party. It makes perfect sense in this context.

A longstanding policy against proliferation of nuclear weapons. Not nuclear power. I'd argue in that it doesn't make much sense, and it's mostly an accident of history. I'd have to go back through my books, but I'm pretty sure there's evidence that the intention was to ban nuclear weapons, but through some misspeaking it accidentally became nuclear propulsion as well.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780261 18-Sep-2021 15:14

PaulL:
gzt:
New Zealand has a longstanding policy against nuclear proliferation extending through all NZ governments regardless of party. It makes perfect sense in this context.

A longstanding policy against proliferation of nuclear weapons. Not nuclear power..

It's been prohibited since 1987.

Section 11 of the Act:
Entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by any ship whose propulsion is wholly or partly dependent on nuclear power is prohibited

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780262 18-Sep-2021 15:17

shk292:
PaulL:

You're right, it's politically massively difficult. As are many things. But scientifically it's not particularly difficult, it's the bit where people believe science that's the problem. And that's not really uncommon.

It's funny, isn't it that we keep being told we can't argue with the science on climate change (and I'm not, BTW), but then our dear leader takes an irrational, anti-science view on nuclear power and GMOs - both of which could be a significant help in counteracting CC - and we can't challenge that.

I'm not trying to trivialise the challenges of nuclear power, but "just saying no" is getting old

Now NZ is North Korea? Seems a pretty clear breech of the FUG to me.

PaulL

91 posts

Master Geek

#2780264 18-Sep-2021 15:23

Handle9:
PaulL:

A longstanding policy against proliferation of nuclear weapons. Not nuclear power..

It's been prohibited since 1987.

Section 11 of the Act:
Entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by any ship whose propulsion is wholly or partly dependent on nuclear power is prohibited

And I'd argue that that's a law giving effect to a policy. The policy that underpins it was originally exactly as you say - anti proliferation of weapons, and therefore banned nuclear weapons in NZ. I don't have time at the moment to trawl my books, but I'm pretty sure that the Labour cabinet at the time had agreed to a ban on nuclear weapons (which would prevent US ship visits). But when David Lange announced it, to the surprise of that cabinet, he announced both nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion would be banned. It wasn't clear if he misspoke, or deliberately went further than cabinet had agreed.

The resulting law mirrored what he announced. And no government since has seen fit to change it. I'd argue that doesn't mean it's a longstanding policy, it's a longstanding law. I do believe that governments of both persuasions are clearly opposed to nuclear weapons. I'd further argue that some governments would have been OK with nuclear propulsion, but that given the policy of neither confirming nor denying weapons on the ships, it was kind of a moot point and therefore not something to spend political capital on.

That's an opinion (to be clear, my opinion). I understand others think differently, but I believe the historical record does support my views.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780267 18-Sep-2021 15:29

PaulL:
And I'd argue that that's a law giving effect to a policy. The policy that underpins it was originally exactly as you say - anti proliferation of weapons, and therefore banned nuclear weapons in NZ. I don't have time at the moment to trawl my books, but I'm pretty sure that the Labour cabinet at the time had agreed to a ban on nuclear weapons (which would prevent US ship visits). But when David Lange announced it, to the surprise of that cabinet, he announced both nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion would be banned. It wasn't clear if he misspoke, or deliberately went further than cabinet had agreed.

The resulting law mirrored what he announced. And no government since has seen fit to change it. I'd argue that doesn't mean it's a longstanding policy, it's a longstanding law. I do believe that governments of both persuasions are clearly opposed to nuclear weapons. I'd further argue that some governments would have been OK with nuclear propulsion, but that given the policy of neither confirming nor denying weapons on the ships, it was kind of a moot point and therefore not something to spend political capital on.

That's an opinion (to be clear, my opinion). I understand others think differently, but I believe the historical record does support my views.

Regardless of any debate or discussion at the time the policy was decided and is clear.

It's a fairly weird argument that a law that has been in place for nearly 35 years has no policy behind it. It is very clear that it does.

Ge0rge

2052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780268 18-Sep-2021 15:39

Handle9: Now NZ is North Korea? Seems a pretty clear breech of the FUG to me.

Well obviously not - North Korea has nuclear subs!

😉

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7