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

91 posts

Master Geek

#2780269 18-Sep-2021 15:40

Handle9: 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.

I think you're deliberately ignoring my point.

It has been the law for 35 years, yes. The policy that informed it was non-proliferation. Which usually refers to weapons. So it's unusual that it also bans nuclear propulsion. People present at the time have said that the policy wasn't intended to cover nuclear propulsion, but was (accidentally or deliberately) announced as such. And nobody since has seen fit to make the policy or law sensible / internally consistent with its stated purpose.

Which bit of that do you think is untrue and/or unlikely?

PolicyGuy

1726 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2780275 18-Sep-2021 15:59

Speculation on the defence oriented forums is that the Australians are most likely to get a version of the British Astute class submarine - or its successor for which studies are being done now - rather than use the USN's Virginia class. Partly this is because the Virginia are too long for the existing building and basing facilities, whereas the Astute is not much longer than the French design for which a lot of the major infrastructure is already being built. Also the Virginia has a much bigger crew (~140) than the Astute (~90), and recruiting training and retaining enough crew for an eight-boat Virginia fleet looks very hard for the RAN to achieve.

It's also suggested that the entire reactor compartment including all the nuclear "stuff" would be shipped out from the USA / UK to Australia and welded into the rest of the Australian-built hull.
Since modern US & UK submarine reactors are fueled for thirty-five or more years, they would never be refueled in Australia, simply returned to the manufacturer for decommissioning at the vessel's end of life.

The Astute uses the same acoustic suite (Thales 2079 IIRC) as the proposed French boat, and its integration with the USN-derived Combat Management Suite is well under way in Australia. It should go across into a RAN Astute without too much difficulty.

Edit: Formatting

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#2780288 18-Sep-2021 16:01

It may just be a way out of the French deal that was not attractive, in capability, jobs or free trade, and kick decision down the road.
Once Australian anti nuclear movement gets going things might change over years of nuclear study.
Boris Johnston may be keen as a way to sell a trade agreement that upsets farmers, look we get to sell our technology.
The final decision is years away it seems.

Despite the possibilities this may never happen, CCP spokespeople seem to have overreacted.
They have an expanding fleet of nuclear submarines and ICBM boomers themselves.
More worried a threatened Japan, or South Korea might look at this perhaps ?

PaulL

91 posts

Master Geek

#2780362 18-Sep-2021 17:29

ezbee:

Despite the possibilities this may never happen, CCP spokespeople seem to have overreacted.
They have an expanding fleet of nuclear submarines and ICBM boomers themselves.
More worried a threatened Japan, or South Korea might look at this perhaps ?

The CCP often over react. At least, from our viewpoint. I'd expect that a deal like this would be very interesting to Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. With Taiwan being the one that would worry the CCP the most. A solid submarine fleet could prevent an invasion. You can't retake Taiwan if you can't invade.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780365 18-Sep-2021 17:31

gzt:
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.

Chernobyl was just one. Fukushima was just one. Thats not including dumping the waste.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780367 18-Sep-2021 17:34

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.

Haven't read the rest of your post as no need. The issue was propelled by nuclear power.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2780376 18-Sep-2021 17:49

shk292:

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

"Politicians". MOD are and always will be a bottomless pit of stuff they "need". They've just had their backsides whipped after a 20 year war against people from mountain villages, armed with leftover cold war rifles, riding on donkeys or driving hiluxes.

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.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2780427 18-Sep-2021 18:00

Subs like tanks, surface ships, aircraft carriers are big slow moving targets that are easily tracked. They are big boy toys for stupid politicians wanting to be in the big gang on the play ground that I hope Aotearoa continues to say bugger off too. This decision shows again that Scott Morrison is an inept leader being led by a seemingly inept leader down a twentieth century type rabbit hole, it is truly pathetic.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780432 18-Sep-2021 18:08

Fred99:
As far as Australia goes, Aussies iron ore and coal exports and much of their imports go through there.

And almost all of it to and from China.

The argument that China's actions in the area are about controlling shipping routes doesn't stack up.

That's what the video I linked to earlier is pointing out, Australia is spending umpty bazillion dollars to protect their trade with China, from China.

And as @Fred99 pointed out, they'll be the only country with nuclear-powered subs that aren't nuclear-armed. Which is the main reason why you have nuclear-powered subs, they can sneak around in the open ocean for months at a time without having to reveal themselves. Using an air power analogy, nuclear-armed subs are the bombers and hunter-killers are the fighter escort. Australia is buying a modest fighter escort for a vague dotted line with "something important should probably go here" in the middle.

Given the neverending debacle of the Collins class, it could be that this is just a means of buying your way out of a headache. And as @Fred99 has also pointed out, there's more than enough governments between now and delivery to get them cancelled. All I can say is, if you're the primary contractor, insist on cash up front.

PaulL

91 posts

Master Geek

#2780434 18-Sep-2021 18:12

tdgeek:

Haven't read the rest of your post as no need. The issue was propelled by nuclear power.

OK, refer here:https://www.artsfaculty.auckland.ac.nz/special/nzfpra/docs/NuclearBan3.pdf

Quotes:

In any case, a greater number of warship visits was seen as increasingly provocative and led to Richard Prebble’s first attempt to introduce an anti-nuclear legislation into Parliament. In 1976, he called ‘for the recognition of the South Pacific nuclear-free zone.’9 After failing to get a majority in Parliament, Prebble made a second attempt in 1982, this time with the Nuclear Free Zone (New Zealand) Bill. He pointed out that ‘his bill would not ban visits of nuclear-powered ships ... It dealt solely with whether parliamentarians were prepared to allow nuclear weapons to be brought into New Zealand.’10 This bill was equally unsuccessful.

So the original debate was around nuclear weapons.

One year later, on 3 August 1983, Bruce Beetham, leader of the Social Credit League, attempted to introduce the Prohibition of Nuclear Vessels and Weapons Bill. As Beetham stated, although expensive to build, nuclear powered ships do not need constant refueling, and for that reason they are ideal vehicles for the offensive role that falls to the Navy. That being so, such vessels will almost invariably—in fact, one could almost say automatically— be armed with offensive weapons, which must include nuclear weapons.11

Thus, Beetham’s bill was the first attempt to introduce a ban on nuclear-powered ships to parlia- ment because such ships were almost certainly armed with nuclear weapons. In the end, the bill was defeated by 40 to 39 votes.

So the debate moved to banning nuclear powered ships - but because they would almost certainly be nuclear armed. The aim wasn't nuclear power, but nuclear weapons still.

Page 14:Lange himself had doubts about banning nuclear-propelled vessels. In his memoirs, he wrote that he ‘wanted the policy to allow for visits by nuclear-powered vessels if acceptable stan- dards of safety were met.’18 This uncertainty about Labour’s proposed ban on nuclear-powered ships in Lange’s own mind probably led some American diplomats to believe that Lange would sway the views of people within his party to eventually drop the idea of banning nuclear-powered ships.

I don't believe you can be as certain as you appear to be. The stated policy was non-proliferation. Some people wanted nuclear power banned as well, and indeed it was. But I would argue that the NZ consensus is around banning nuclear weapons. I don't believe that there is a consensus to ban nuclear power, but there is a political reality that it would be hard to change the law and little point given that no nuclear powered ships are likely to visit, and NZ is unlikely at the current time to build a nuclear power station. Interpreting inaction as consensus is not correct.

Ge0rge

2052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780436 18-Sep-2021 18:16

Fred99: They've just had their backsides whipped after a 20 year war against people from mountain villages, armed with leftover cold war rifles, riding on donkeys or driving hiluxes.

So types he from behind his keyboard.

If that is indeed your opinion of what happened, then you are sadly delusioned. Suffice to say I find it an affront to the ten New Zelanders who died, and thousands more who served in Afghan. What a simplistic and ignorant comment.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780437 18-Sep-2021 18:22

Ge0rge: If that is indeed your opinion of what happened, then you are sadly delusioned. Suffice to say I find it an affront to the ten New Zelanders who died, and thousands more who served in Afghan.

Why?

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#2780438 18-Sep-2021 18:27

Policyguy Your post #2780275 , that looks quite doable if you just return the hot bits to the 'original manufacturer'.
All you need are deep pockets ( I wonder if someone wants to buy a lot of Iron Ore, Coal and Bauxite )
Suppose a future election will decide if it goes beyond the study, people will have their say in shape of future Governments.

If only we could return all our waste car tires and difficult to recycle plastics and such back to 'original manufacturer'

Some comments I have seen on overseas boards are awfully comical re New Zealand turning down a gifthorse.
Like how do you expect a mainly agrarian economy to afford such toys, now Lord of the Rings is Gone :-)

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2780448 18-Sep-2021 19:07

Ge0rge: Well obviously not - North Korea has nuclear subs!

North Korea has exactly zero nuclear propelled submarines.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780450 18-Sep-2021 19:18

PaulL:
I don't believe you can be as certain as you appear to be. The stated policy was non-proliferation. Some people wanted nuclear power banned as well, and indeed it was. But I would argue that the NZ consensus is around banning nuclear weapons. I don't believe that there is a consensus to ban nuclear power, but there is a political reality that it would be hard to change the law and little point given that no nuclear powered ships are likely to visit, and NZ is unlikely at the current time to build a nuclear power station. Interpreting inaction as consensus is not correct.

There is certainly no consensus to change the status quo. Therefore it is, and will remain, NZ policy and law for the foreseeable future.

In 2008 there was clear consensus around the current policy. You have no evidence that that has changed.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/fifth-of-nzers-polled-say-nuclear-power-viable/UVY532YDQWWKNIBVFZIAZWIB5M/

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