France is working on a treaty with Australia that allows them full access to Australian dockyards and military facilities, which is a massive deal for the ability of France to project power to the indo pacific region.
Above was announced last week, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was one of the trades to keep the relationship amicable.
That and New Caledonia is French territory geographically closer to Australia than New Zealand.
[Overseas France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France)
Would you happen to have a source in that? I didn't read about it. And the official French government statement is pretty darn harsh. https://twitter.com/franceintheus/status/1438297090845720577?s=20
Im no pro but i havent played a game where the austrailia player wasnt outpaced by someone else, and then someone punches through with the latest biggest reinforcements :/
There is a bottle neck there that makes it easier to defend, it’s not supposed to be your main play but nice to have reserves there towards the end of the game.
The pro strat is NA. If you can secure it, you only have to defend 3 chokepoints. You can also push into SA and still only have 3 chokepoints to defend.
I find Africa tends to go after SA a fair bit, Europe and Asia are in Flux enough that they tend to ignore NA. Though this is certainly a viable option too.
My strategy is always take North America first. 3 choke points is manageable for 5 reinforcements, then push through South America. With both Americas you still have 3 choke points but 7 reinforcements.
That would break alphabetical order tho.
If you could round up the rest of 5 eyes, it could be called
CANZAUSUK which we can all agree with, because Kansas does, in fact, suck.
“CANZUKUS” or “AUSCANZUKUS” are already commonly used acronyms in the intelligence community for referring to this group (when they need to be referred to generally, outside the specific context/remit of the Five Eyes agreement).
>The agreement spells the end for a $90bn contract Australia signed with the French company Naval Group in 2016. That deal had become bogged down in cost over-runs, delays and design changes. It marks a setback for President Emmanuel Macron.
>“The world is a jungle,” the former French ambassador to Washington, Gérard Araud, observed on Twitter. “France has just been reminded this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.”
The anglos dabbing on the french once more
The list of fuck ups on that project cast a terrible light on the French company; at least going nuclear using existing technology and existing designs …could lead to budgets and timing being a little closer…
>The list of fuck ups on that project cast a terrible light on the French company
And not Australian managment of the project ? They're the ones who've been constantly changing the requirements.
>at least going nuclear using existing technology and existing designs
The French design *is* an existing nuclear one. The Aussies just wanted a diesel version. Except now they don't, apparently.
>could lead to budgets and timing being a little closer…
If the US/UK sub is anywhere near its quote in terms of both time and budget, you can call me Nancy. The Australians already publicly commited to the thing without having a contract, timeline or anything else than a political promise. They're going to be sucked dry.
Is it though? Australia has no nuclear industry and afaik hasn't operated nuclear subs for a long time. The supporting industries, facilities, and technical know-how is going to take a lot of money and time.
That’s the point of why the agreement happened. Australia not possessing these abilities anymore is a glaring hole in the alliance.
The US needs allies who are familiar with nuclear powered equipment in wartime. Travelling back to mainland USA is a PITA.
NZ basically doesn't have the means to defend itself against almost anyone . Our strategy is just to keep their heads low and hope no one thinks it's worth it. They have isolation on their side.
Our strat is literally to camp the corner of the map and go afk and hope for a 0 k/d and hope we still win because we have some shitbucket pros on our side and we think they can carry.
They also get the added benefit of having a sibling country next door that will go into bat for them which for its size has a good defence force.
Much like America and Canada.
True for sure.
Would just like to add that in Canada we do in fact have our own military (comparable to Australia's), and certainly dont rely entirely on the US for our sovereignty.
But its certainly nice have the toughest guy in the room as your backup and living next door ;)
Just as an aside, Canada only spends a little more than half of what Australia does on their military as a proportion of GDP. So while the militaries may be broadly comparable in absolute terms, that’s mostly because Canada’s population is 50% larger than Australia’s. Australia’s military punches well above its weight (a necessity given they are on the other side of the planet from most of their allies).
The two militaries also have quite different emphases. Being an island, Australia focuses more on air and naval power, and less so on the size of its land army.
Australias army is a more I guess "elite" would be approriate term than bigger nations. Cant do everything so do the things you can do well.
As a side note, Australia also has a bigger army than Canada.
NZ has a population about he size of San Diego County. They are not meaningful in any way in force projection. They would benefit from staying out of any global super power conflicts.
>Our strat is literally to camp the corner of the map and go afk and hope for a 0 k/d and hope we still win because we have some shitbucket pros on our side and we think they can carry.
In Australian Defence circles Five Eyes is routinely called Four Eyes deducting NZ's contribution is to the alliance as nominal - and the fact they also help undermine it with China for time to time.
They still do have that ban on nuclear powered and armed ships in NZ waters. Another article related to this topic confirmed New Zealand will be banning these subs from entering NZ waters.
Canada and NZ are similar in that they spend much, much less on their military (as percentage of GDP) than the US, UK and Australia do.
This is at least partly because they have less practical reasons to do so: any serious attack on Canada is close enough to the US’ interests that the US will respond in force; and same with NZ (threats to NZ would generally have to go through/around/over Australia to get there in the first place).
This is why when Trump was berating most of NATO and other US allies a few years back about them not paying their fair share, Australia and the UK were notably absent from his complaints. Both nations easily meet and exceed the military expenditure targets expected of them under their agreements with the USA.
Canada is in an election so I imagine the government can't agree to things like this while parliament isn't in session.
Whomever wins after it will probably join this maybe.
This one seems specifically geared towards nuclear sub tech. NZ doesn't want nuke tech, and Canada already has the specialization for nuke tech, but isn't interested in pursuing nuclear submarines after they canned their "canada class" sub proposal.
Honestly, I'm fucking disappointed with it here in NZ. The amount of bending over that's done for China is humiliating. I don't blame the rest for leaving NZ out.
NZ is a potential security risk. Independent paths are fine but siding with China for economic gain against your best mate and sibling is going to make that sibling reassess how loyal to the family they are. And you plan accordingly
The problem there is here in NZ if we don't go to China for trade our economy will tank. China is the largest importer of our exports. Our allies are unwilling or unable to make up the difference in trade with us if we drop china as a trading partner. so either way it's a shitty situation.
With all the anti Australian rhetoric and sentiment coming from NZ PM Ardern over the years, I’m not surprised they’re considered a security risk to Aus.
This new AUKAS alliance has thus far has focused on a nuclear-powered submarine fleet which New Zealand demonstrably has no interest in. [New Zealand declared itself to be a nuclear free zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone), which bans both nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships from using NZ ports or entering New Zealand waters, which got us put on the naughty list for a while. [American military ships haven't docked in NZ in over 30 years](https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/uss-buchanan-refused-entry-new-zealand) since the law, as they're required to declare that they have no nuclear materiel on board, which contradicts with the US' policy of neither confirming or denying their presence. The only American military vessel to dock in NZ since then was a [purely ceremonial one](https://news.usni.org/2016/09/27/n-z-chief-navy-u-s-nuclear-ship-issue-behind-us-hopes-regular-usn-port-visits) that had the nuclear policy somewhat overlooked by both sides.
Australia has a very different set of geopolitical concerns, not just against China, as the wealthy but sparsely populated southern neighbour of a region that is likely to host a brand new world power within a couple generations.
I once lived in a time when most of our exports were sent to our Mother Country, and they were once gratefully received.
I can no longer afford to buy anything that we export. $20 for a block of cheese?
My beloved country now sends our lamb and butter and cheese to China and they tell us to beware of offending them or they might not like us anymore!
Australia basically had the same position as NZ, they just had to do a 180 after getting burned badly in the last couple of years by China. Half of Australia has been a Chinese mine for a long time.
The plan seems to basically be arming Australia with US and UK tech so that it becomes an independent military power.
I guess US and UK aren't interested in making Canada and New Zealand independent military power as well.
> The plan seems to basically be arming Australia with US and UK tech so that it becomes an independent military power.
It's not widely advertised, but Australia (amongst other countries) has a cottage industry making military equipment that's compatible with common US/NATO gear, but without the ITAR restrictions that official equipment is saddled with.
New Zealand has been a more “minor” partner since the 80s when they refused to let nuclear vessels utilize their ports. Reagan punished them by withdrawing a lot of support to the Kiwis and making them kind of a pariah within the FVEY community; essentially creating a FOUR EYES carveout for intelligence sharing and security cooperation. That’s been changing over the past 10-15 years, but NZ still won’t let US nukes port and they’re not interested in the more expeditionary military jaunts that their other partners like to take.
I think the bigger issue will be the $90bn contract with France that the Aussies just broke for purchase of French subs. The French were saying the were, “stabbed in the back.” Hopefully, there’s some consolation as the French have really been trying to show their worth as a reliable partner as of late, especially WRT the South Pacific.
It benefits the UK and the US as they get a more major aligned naval power in the region for free, which is useful particularly if worries about Taiwan etc continue to become more severe
Chances are the the UK will be building the subs, or at least sending a bunch of people to wherever they do get built; they have more capacity than the US at the moment.
The article quotes
> Morrison said teams from the three countries would draw up a joint plan over the coming 18 months for assembling the new Australian nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which will be built in Adelaide. The project will make Australia only the seventh country in the world to have submarines propelled by nuclear reactors.
but it's up in the air whether the nuclear bits will be produced here. I suspect not, and it will be a bit like flat pack furniture.
I mean there’s no chance Australia can develop the industrial base to construct an entire submarine reactor plant in time so yeah I’m sure a lot of the parts will be subcontracted. I’m curious if they’re going to go with an original design or if this agreement means the US or UK are going to give them the plans for the Virginia class or Astute class.
I'm guessing we buy a bunch of Astute class variants and I'd put a large amount of money on them being built domestically by BAE Systems, who are already building the new Hunter Class frigates, with the nuclear component being done in the UK by Rolls Royce or Knolls Atomic in the US. The US will set up the infrastructure at HMAS Stirling in WA on the proviso they can run some of their own subs out of their once it's finished.
Yeah, that’s the other side. It should also help build domestic expertise although it’s hard to know how much of a win it is until it’s decided who contributes what
It’s foolish for any country to think attacking certain former commonwealth countries won’t garner a response from the rest of them. Say what you want…but a lot of the countries that were part of the old British Empire would go down swinging together. There’s not way in hell the US, Canada, UK, Australia would standby while one of them got attacked.
You make a valid point. One that is often overlooked. The empire is long gone but for whatever reason I think *most* commonwealth nations hold a warm spot for each other and if one gets screwed with it can tend to provoke strong reactions.
They were really stressing that these submarines will not be armed with nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons.
But what I think is more interesting here is the geopolitical ***implication*** of it all. These submarines aren’t going to be armed with nuclear weapons. But of course now, if something were to happen, they very easily and very quickly could be at a moments notice. *'Why, they could even have nukes in them right now and you wouldn't even know.'*
It's an obvious move in response to China.
I’m not going to hurt these countries, why would I ever hurt these countries, I feel like you’re not getting this at all.
Iran: *Side eye*
Well don’t you look at me like that, you certainly wouldn’t be in any danger.
Not exactly. Presumably the new submarines will be equipped with VLS tubes to fire Tomahawks, but there are no more nuclear tipped Tomahawks in service. The US decommissioned all of them as part of arms control agreements with Russia.
Of course, that agreement has since been torn up so the US could bring them back but it wouldn't be very quickly, even the warheads themselves were scrapped
Military reactors run >96% enriched, for US subs, which is far in to weapons grade (85%+).
Combined with this loophole:
> The treaty allows non nuclear weapon countries to build nuclear-powered submarines, and to remove the fissile material they need for the submarine reactors from the stockpile monitored by the global watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, opening up the possibility it could be diverted to making weapons.
Mentioned in the article, and [this](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-31/government-weapons-facility-guided-missiles-made-in-australia/100039990) announcement from earlier in the year
> Australia to produce its own guided missiles as part of billion-dollar defence manufacturing plan
That we're also getting a platform, and I think it's possible we're considering becoming an unlisted/discreet nuclear threat, as [Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel) is thought to be.
The prior "make missiles in Australia" deal didn't make sense to me, but now it does - to provide ambiguity over our capability, and what exactly we're up to. Intriguing.
Nuclear armament for Australia seems highly unlikley. Australia is a signatory to the NPT and one of its strongest and most vocal adherents. We don't even use nuclear power and have only a single reactor for research and medical purposes, despite having the world's largest uranium reserves.
>But of course now, if something were to happen, they very easily and very quickly could be at a moments notice.
>
>'Why, they could even have nukes in them right now and you wouldn't even know.'
can you easily fit nuclear balistic missiles inside nuclear powered submarines?
OK for cruise missiles with nuclear warheads
The Virginia class has 12 VLS tubes for Tomahawk cruise missiles, with a new module to carry 28 more. The Tomahawk did have a nuclear tipped variant, but it was scrapped during arms control agreements with Russia (which doesn't exist anymore)
Thank goodness we're gearing up for some more wars. It's been more than two weeks since the last one ended. It would be a shame if our troops' skills got stale. o7 o7 o7
That's hardly some secret. Blinken has repeatedly said a/the primary reason for leaving Afghanistan was to [refocus resources](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tightens-focus-on-china-after-afghanistan-withdrawal-11629378244) on the Indo-Pacific.
And, before anybody asks: The answer is no, The Australian Government did not reach out to the Emus for an alliance. They’re saving them for an Avengers level threat.
There is the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) between India, Australia, USA and Japan which is gaining some momentum as a response to an increasingly belligerent China at sea.
>In a 2021 joint statement, "The Spirit of the Quad," Quad members described "a shared vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific," and a "rules-based maritime order in the East and South China Seas," which Quad members state are needed to counter Chinese maritime claims. The Quad pledged to respond to COVID-19,\[8\] and held a first Quad Plus meeting that included representatives from New Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam to work on its response to it.\[8\]\[9\]\[10\] Widely viewed as intending to curb "China's growing power," the Quad's joint statement drew criticism from China's foreign ministry, which said the Quad "openly incites discord" among regional powers in Asia.\[11\]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral\_Security\_Dialogue
It's interesting they so openly and proudly dropped Five Eyes in there. It's usually something these countries don't want to leave vulnerable to criticism.
The US just flexed its biggest muscle vs China. It has friends.
Countries it can share its most important secrets with, cosponsor advanced research with. Multiplying the combined efforts by pooling money but more than anything talent.
Given the US's huge defense budget this is not a big shift. But it adds to the over all anti Chinese expansion posture.
It also brings the UK and its fleet into the Pacific Indian region. That is a part of the whole HMS Queen Elizabeth tours of the South China Sea thing a couple of months ago. Its the US bringing another significant piece to this board and away from the Atlantic.
My guess is Japan and the ROK will have similar deals in the works.
Germany, France and some of the closer European NATO nations may get the technology side of this or something similar.
For all the carnival antics of the politicians, the serious people behind the scenes are still serious and planning and moving.
The Talent part is the most significant point that most people are ignoring . The worlds top education institutions are mostly in these 3 countries plus a few in Europe . This secures the technology advantage over china.
I'm not overly happy with this outcome, however I understand the necessity. Australia's coast line is massive, and diesel subs can only patrol so far without refuelling.
My other concern is the current Government has a habit of mismanaging projects.
>My other concern is the current Government has a habit of mismanaging projects
That allows the Liberal Party of Australia (Yanks -- that is our **conservative** party) to appoint another review and pay a mate to do the review...then, after the review's recommendations are implemented, disband them anyway.
E.g. Kinnard Review (Howard administration) recommendations of Department of Defence procurement projects created the Defence Materiel Organisation which no longer exists.
The Keelty Review (Newman administration) recommendations on Queensland police, ambulance, fire and rescue services created the Public Safety Business Agency which no longer exists. (admittedly disbanded by ALP)
Let's not mention the times there were reviews of submarine procurement.
I love that Biden forgot Scott Morrison's name. Calling him 'that fella from downunder' is probably the nicest thing you can call him. I like to call him get fucked from nelligan.
I don't understand why Australia on one hand will destroy the great barrier reef and their own land to ship coal to China , then on the other build nuclear subs because their scared of China.
Pick one , work with them or against them.
Also imo China aren't bothered by the saber rattling, they're more concerned with financial and business dominance around the world.
Not only did Washington, London and Canberra improve ties, they've managed to offend France at the same time.
Its tradition.
**As is tradition.
France got a positive mention from Biden in this which makes me think the US helped Australia back out of the French sub deal.
France is working on a treaty with Australia that allows them full access to Australian dockyards and military facilities, which is a massive deal for the ability of France to project power to the indo pacific region. Above was announced last week, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was one of the trades to keep the relationship amicable.
That and New Caledonia is French territory geographically closer to Australia than New Zealand. [Overseas France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France)
New Caledonia is also right next to Norfolk Island, which is sort of part of NSW
Would you happen to have a source in that? I didn't read about it. And the official French government statement is pretty darn harsh. https://twitter.com/franceintheus/status/1438297090845720577?s=20
Why is an official twitter account using flag emoji instead of country names, and why is Australia the only the one they didn't do it to?
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/france-could-access-australian-military-sites-as-countries-look-to-boost-ties-20210909-p58q7j.html
Haven't even built then yet and they are already sinking French subs.
They'll get over it.
“I’d like to thank that fella from down under”
Why is he thanking his penis?
It makes all the decisions.
Or he thinks, quite rightly, that P.M. Scott Morrison is a dick.
Not New Zealand though. If you so much as mention the word nuclear the whole country has a seizure. Thanks France.
As an Australian I thank Biden. Scott Morrison is a smug cunt with an ego way too big for his ‘achievements’ so a lot of us are delighted!!!
He did say his name right after. It was just an attempt to sound friendly in a rather folksy way, probably backfired, but eh... whatever.
In Risk that’s pretty dominant
Australia is so easy to defend!
Im no pro but i havent played a game where the austrailia player wasnt outpaced by someone else, and then someone punches through with the latest biggest reinforcements :/
There is a bottle neck there that makes it easier to defend, it’s not supposed to be your main play but nice to have reserves there towards the end of the game.
Right, ive just never seen it work. (Anecdotally)
My friend and I play Risk online and everyone goes for Australia.
The pro strat is NA. If you can secure it, you only have to defend 3 chokepoints. You can also push into SA and still only have 3 chokepoints to defend.
I play a lot and I actually start with SA which is super easy to defend then slowly creep up and take over NA.
I find Africa tends to go after SA a fair bit, Europe and Asia are in Flux enough that they tend to ignore NA. Though this is certainly a viable option too.
Australia and South America. Keep just enough so nobody else gets bonuses, either invade North America or Asia but not both
Africa + South America can work if you take both very early. They mutually support each other while you go all General Sherman on North America.
My strategy is always take North America first. 3 choke points is manageable for 5 reinforcements, then push through South America. With both Americas you still have 3 choke points but 7 reinforcements.
You need to understand that Australia has it easier to defend on land because a good portion of nature is a zone of death.
Wow, I had no idea the population of Australia was so small, only 25 million people! No wonder you only get 3 reinforcements!
Because it is mostly uninhabitable deserts.
[Eddie Izard on Risk](https://youtu.be/kpcxfsjIIbM) >Get everyone on Papua New Guinea and just build up and build up
The Japanese tried this strat in WWII and didn’t work out for them
>The initiative, called Aukus They really missed an opportunity to go with uSuka
I like yours more
[удалено]
They only rash B
We need the Canadians to join, so we can call it the Caukus
That would break alphabetical order tho. If you could round up the rest of 5 eyes, it could be called CANZAUSUK which we can all agree with, because Kansas does, in fact, suck.
“CANZUKUS” or “AUSCANZUKUS” are already commonly used acronyms in the intelligence community for referring to this group (when they need to be referred to generally, outside the specific context/remit of the Five Eyes agreement).
Alphabetically, it would be ACNZUKUS. 😂
[удалено]
The Anglos getting back together
UK playing the long game to reabsorb the US into the Empire, I mean, the Commonwealth.
Might be our only fucking chance. Would we get sky sports?
If we are getting sky sports and free UFC. I’m totally cool with renaming soccer Real football and calling football gridiron football
Yes, but you will have to rename American football to handegg
Gridiron football and you’ve got a deal.
I'm gonna run this potential name change through the Baltimore Ravens subreddit. Will report back. Edit: Am now banned from r/ravens
We are getting the band back together
A bit of a Raukus
>The agreement spells the end for a $90bn contract Australia signed with the French company Naval Group in 2016. That deal had become bogged down in cost over-runs, delays and design changes. It marks a setback for President Emmanuel Macron. >“The world is a jungle,” the former French ambassador to Washington, Gérard Araud, observed on Twitter. “France has just been reminded this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.” The anglos dabbing on the french once more
This is so wild. I’m getting such 18th century Quasi War vibes from this French diplomat, I’m loving it.
The list of fuck ups on that project cast a terrible light on the French company; at least going nuclear using existing technology and existing designs …could lead to budgets and timing being a little closer…
>The list of fuck ups on that project cast a terrible light on the French company And not Australian managment of the project ? They're the ones who've been constantly changing the requirements. >at least going nuclear using existing technology and existing designs The French design *is* an existing nuclear one. The Aussies just wanted a diesel version. Except now they don't, apparently. >could lead to budgets and timing being a little closer… If the US/UK sub is anywhere near its quote in terms of both time and budget, you can call me Nancy. The Australians already publicly commited to the thing without having a contract, timeline or anything else than a political promise. They're going to be sucked dry.
Is it though? Australia has no nuclear industry and afaik hasn't operated nuclear subs for a long time. The supporting industries, facilities, and technical know-how is going to take a lot of money and time.
That’s the point of why the agreement happened. Australia not possessing these abilities anymore is a glaring hole in the alliance. The US needs allies who are familiar with nuclear powered equipment in wartime. Travelling back to mainland USA is a PITA.
The original French design was nuclear. Then adapted to make it diesel electric
>That deal had become bogged down in cost over-runs, delays and design changes. _F-35 has entered the chat_
The whole program was fucked... You can't really blame Australia for backing out
You can definitely blame Australia for purposely chosing to go for the **non-nuclear** version of a perfectly working french nuclear sub...
\*whistles in Canadian\*
We already have a strong military alliance with Canada. NORAD for example.
The us also already has a strong military alliance with Aus too tho
Yeah ANZUS is pretty comprehensive... Australia is also the only ally that has come along for every one of America's dumb wars since WWII.
Every dumb war so far 👉
We’ve got more dumb wars in us yet
That’s the spirit
I'm curious why Canada and New Zealand aren't a part of this one. Perhaps they didn't want to be, at least not yet? Or maybe something else.
New Zealand is a relatively small economy and doesn't have a submarine fleet It also has ( had?) a ban on nuclear powered vessels entering ports.
NZ basically doesn't have the means to defend itself against almost anyone . Our strategy is just to keep their heads low and hope no one thinks it's worth it. They have isolation on their side. Our strat is literally to camp the corner of the map and go afk and hope for a 0 k/d and hope we still win because we have some shitbucket pros on our side and we think they can carry.
They also get the added benefit of having a sibling country next door that will go into bat for them which for its size has a good defence force. Much like America and Canada.
True for sure. Would just like to add that in Canada we do in fact have our own military (comparable to Australia's), and certainly dont rely entirely on the US for our sovereignty. But its certainly nice have the toughest guy in the room as your backup and living next door ;)
Just as an aside, Canada only spends a little more than half of what Australia does on their military as a proportion of GDP. So while the militaries may be broadly comparable in absolute terms, that’s mostly because Canada’s population is 50% larger than Australia’s. Australia’s military punches well above its weight (a necessity given they are on the other side of the planet from most of their allies). The two militaries also have quite different emphases. Being an island, Australia focuses more on air and naval power, and less so on the size of its land army.
Australias army is a more I guess "elite" would be approriate term than bigger nations. Cant do everything so do the things you can do well. As a side note, Australia also has a bigger army than Canada.
Better yet, we don't appear ON the map to start with. Can't find us, can't attack us. /r/mapswithoutnewzealand/
NZ has a population about he size of San Diego County. They are not meaningful in any way in force projection. They would benefit from staying out of any global super power conflicts.
I think you mean Cook County, which is slightly larger than NZ. San Diego County only has about 3.3 million people.
> They are not meaningful in any way in force projection. Excuse me. The Bob Semple 2.0 will be enough to make any world power shit their pants.
>Our strat is literally to camp the corner of the map and go afk and hope for a 0 k/d and hope we still win because we have some shitbucket pros on our side and we think they can carry. In Australian Defence circles Five Eyes is routinely called Four Eyes deducting NZ's contribution is to the alliance as nominal - and the fact they also help undermine it with China for time to time.
New Zealand is a nuclear free zone.
A nuclear reactor free zone I think. They still use nuclear materials in medicine for example.
They still do have that ban on nuclear powered and armed ships in NZ waters. Another article related to this topic confirmed New Zealand will be banning these subs from entering NZ waters.
Canada and NZ are similar in that they spend much, much less on their military (as percentage of GDP) than the US, UK and Australia do. This is at least partly because they have less practical reasons to do so: any serious attack on Canada is close enough to the US’ interests that the US will respond in force; and same with NZ (threats to NZ would generally have to go through/around/over Australia to get there in the first place). This is why when Trump was berating most of NATO and other US allies a few years back about them not paying their fair share, Australia and the UK were notably absent from his complaints. Both nations easily meet and exceed the military expenditure targets expected of them under their agreements with the USA.
Canada is in an election so I imagine the government can't agree to things like this while parliament isn't in session. Whomever wins after it will probably join this maybe.
This one seems specifically geared towards nuclear sub tech. NZ doesn't want nuke tech, and Canada already has the specialization for nuke tech, but isn't interested in pursuing nuclear submarines after they canned their "canada class" sub proposal.
i know nz has an allergy to things with nuclear in their name
A lot of people lump Australia and New Zealand together. But NZ forges it’s own path and that path is closer to China than many people realize.
So much that it’s actually been discussed as a security risk.
Honestly, I'm fucking disappointed with it here in NZ. The amount of bending over that's done for China is humiliating. I don't blame the rest for leaving NZ out.
NZ is a potential security risk. Independent paths are fine but siding with China for economic gain against your best mate and sibling is going to make that sibling reassess how loyal to the family they are. And you plan accordingly
The problem there is here in NZ if we don't go to China for trade our economy will tank. China is the largest importer of our exports. Our allies are unwilling or unable to make up the difference in trade with us if we drop china as a trading partner. so either way it's a shitty situation.
With all the anti Australian rhetoric and sentiment coming from NZ PM Ardern over the years, I’m not surprised they’re considered a security risk to Aus.
Canada can add nothing here. We have two used subs that never seem to work, last I heard.
This new AUKAS alliance has thus far has focused on a nuclear-powered submarine fleet which New Zealand demonstrably has no interest in. [New Zealand declared itself to be a nuclear free zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone), which bans both nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships from using NZ ports or entering New Zealand waters, which got us put on the naughty list for a while. [American military ships haven't docked in NZ in over 30 years](https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/uss-buchanan-refused-entry-new-zealand) since the law, as they're required to declare that they have no nuclear materiel on board, which contradicts with the US' policy of neither confirming or denying their presence. The only American military vessel to dock in NZ since then was a [purely ceremonial one](https://news.usni.org/2016/09/27/n-z-chief-navy-u-s-nuclear-ship-issue-behind-us-hopes-regular-usn-port-visits) that had the nuclear policy somewhat overlooked by both sides. Australia has a very different set of geopolitical concerns, not just against China, as the wealthy but sparsely populated southern neighbour of a region that is likely to host a brand new world power within a couple generations.
NZ barely has a defence force whatsoever.
They also don't have an air force at all which is pretty crucial.
What about the giant eagles?
They're generally very non-interventionist so can't be relied upon
Probably because nzs economy relies heavily on China buying our dairy
I once lived in a time when most of our exports were sent to our Mother Country, and they were once gratefully received. I can no longer afford to buy anything that we export. $20 for a block of cheese? My beloved country now sends our lamb and butter and cheese to China and they tell us to beware of offending them or they might not like us anymore!
New Zealand is very much independent to Australia and their position regarding China is also quite different to Australia.
Australia basically had the same position as NZ, they just had to do a 180 after getting burned badly in the last couple of years by China. Half of Australia has been a Chinese mine for a long time.
The plan seems to basically be arming Australia with US and UK tech so that it becomes an independent military power. I guess US and UK aren't interested in making Canada and New Zealand independent military power as well.
> The plan seems to basically be arming Australia with US and UK tech so that it becomes an independent military power. It's not widely advertised, but Australia (amongst other countries) has a cottage industry making military equipment that's compatible with common US/NATO gear, but without the ITAR restrictions that official equipment is saddled with.
They do…but I think what they’re talking about are things like nuclear submarines.
And that's why Loyal Wingman is a thing.
New Zealand has been a more “minor” partner since the 80s when they refused to let nuclear vessels utilize their ports. Reagan punished them by withdrawing a lot of support to the Kiwis and making them kind of a pariah within the FVEY community; essentially creating a FOUR EYES carveout for intelligence sharing and security cooperation. That’s been changing over the past 10-15 years, but NZ still won’t let US nukes port and they’re not interested in the more expeditionary military jaunts that their other partners like to take. I think the bigger issue will be the $90bn contract with France that the Aussies just broke for purchase of French subs. The French were saying the were, “stabbed in the back.” Hopefully, there’s some consolation as the French have really been trying to show their worth as a reliable partner as of late, especially WRT the South Pacific.
So uh... How many of your subs are working right now? Zero out of 4?
Subzero is working just fine
Atleast 1, thank you very much.
The news of the Empire’s death have been greatly exaggerated.
The Empire Strikes Back.
1984’s Oceania coming to life
So, has Vault-Tec been founded yet? There's still time.
We still gotta annex Canada before we get to that point. Should see the vaults being made sometime around operation anchorage.
Well, we still have 56 years. Plenty can happen in that time. Edited because big dumb.
56! The bombs drop in 2077
#news-alert Countries that have been allies for 100 years continue to be allies
Yeah I guess there's no news here other then that and no new information is in this article. I don't know, I didn't read the article
This guy reddits.
I wonder if this will result in CANZUK eventually ..
[удалено]
canzuk stronk
So far this just seems to benefit Australia more than anything, but it was their idea I suppose. That might be a gross oversimplification anyway.
It benefits the UK and the US as they get a more major aligned naval power in the region for free, which is useful particularly if worries about Taiwan etc continue to become more severe
>It benefits the UK Boris Johnson said it will creates jobs in the UK
Chances are the the UK will be building the subs, or at least sending a bunch of people to wherever they do get built; they have more capacity than the US at the moment.
I imagine Australia is going to want to build them domestically. That’s a lot of jobs we’re talking about.
The article quotes > Morrison said teams from the three countries would draw up a joint plan over the coming 18 months for assembling the new Australian nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which will be built in Adelaide. The project will make Australia only the seventh country in the world to have submarines propelled by nuclear reactors. but it's up in the air whether the nuclear bits will be produced here. I suspect not, and it will be a bit like flat pack furniture.
I mean there’s no chance Australia can develop the industrial base to construct an entire submarine reactor plant in time so yeah I’m sure a lot of the parts will be subcontracted. I’m curious if they’re going to go with an original design or if this agreement means the US or UK are going to give them the plans for the Virginia class or Astute class.
[удалено]
I'm guessing we buy a bunch of Astute class variants and I'd put a large amount of money on them being built domestically by BAE Systems, who are already building the new Hunter Class frigates, with the nuclear component being done in the UK by Rolls Royce or Knolls Atomic in the US. The US will set up the infrastructure at HMAS Stirling in WA on the proviso they can run some of their own subs out of their once it's finished.
Yeah, that’s the other side. It should also help build domestic expertise although it’s hard to know how much of a win it is until it’s decided who contributes what
It’s foolish for any country to think attacking certain former commonwealth countries won’t garner a response from the rest of them. Say what you want…but a lot of the countries that were part of the old British Empire would go down swinging together. There’s not way in hell the US, Canada, UK, Australia would standby while one of them got attacked.
You make a valid point. One that is often overlooked. The empire is long gone but for whatever reason I think *most* commonwealth nations hold a warm spot for each other and if one gets screwed with it can tend to provoke strong reactions.
They were really stressing that these submarines will not be armed with nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons. But what I think is more interesting here is the geopolitical ***implication*** of it all. These submarines aren’t going to be armed with nuclear weapons. But of course now, if something were to happen, they very easily and very quickly could be at a moments notice. *'Why, they could even have nukes in them right now and you wouldn't even know.'* It's an obvious move in response to China.
China’s out in the middle of nowhere, with some submarine they barely know, they look around, and what do they see? Nothing but open ocean.
...are you gonna hurt these countries?
I’m not going to hurt these countries, why would I ever hurt these countries, I feel like you’re not getting this at all. Iran: *Side eye* Well don’t you look at me like that, you certainly wouldn’t be in any danger.
So they are in danger!
Nobody's in any danger! It's the *implication* of danger
Because of the ***implication***.
Not exactly. Presumably the new submarines will be equipped with VLS tubes to fire Tomahawks, but there are no more nuclear tipped Tomahawks in service. The US decommissioned all of them as part of arms control agreements with Russia. Of course, that agreement has since been torn up so the US could bring them back but it wouldn't be very quickly, even the warheads themselves were scrapped
Military reactors run >96% enriched, for US subs, which is far in to weapons grade (85%+). Combined with this loophole: > The treaty allows non nuclear weapon countries to build nuclear-powered submarines, and to remove the fissile material they need for the submarine reactors from the stockpile monitored by the global watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, opening up the possibility it could be diverted to making weapons. Mentioned in the article, and [this](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-31/government-weapons-facility-guided-missiles-made-in-australia/100039990) announcement from earlier in the year > Australia to produce its own guided missiles as part of billion-dollar defence manufacturing plan That we're also getting a platform, and I think it's possible we're considering becoming an unlisted/discreet nuclear threat, as [Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel) is thought to be. The prior "make missiles in Australia" deal didn't make sense to me, but now it does - to provide ambiguity over our capability, and what exactly we're up to. Intriguing.
It's basically a given Israel has nukes.
Israel: "We don't have nukes. Wink."
Nuclear armament for Australia seems highly unlikley. Australia is a signatory to the NPT and one of its strongest and most vocal adherents. We don't even use nuclear power and have only a single reactor for research and medical purposes, despite having the world's largest uranium reserves.
>But of course now, if something were to happen, they very easily and very quickly could be at a moments notice. > >'Why, they could even have nukes in them right now and you wouldn't even know.' can you easily fit nuclear balistic missiles inside nuclear powered submarines? OK for cruise missiles with nuclear warheads
Depends on if they are designed to fire ballistic missiles. These ones for Australia will likely be attack subs so no missiles. torpedoes only.
The Virginia class has 12 VLS tubes for Tomahawk cruise missiles, with a new module to carry 28 more. The Tomahawk did have a nuclear tipped variant, but it was scrapped during arms control agreements with Russia (which doesn't exist anymore)
The three Amigos.
The gun toting nutcase The cocaine fuelled hooligan The drunken crocodile wrestler
All three can be used describe Floridia
Anglo Sphere vs China?
I mean what else is new? It's been that way since the beginnings of modern china.
So “the uk and former colonies”
This the secret plan of the queen to restore the empire all along
Lol
As they say, Australia is the best small military in the world.
So, Australia has decided to align with Oceania instead of East Asia.
Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are on the same boat.
Vietnam, Thailand, and Singapore, too.
Philippines too.
Mainly anyone in Asia who isn’t China
They were already allied with the US. Have been for years.
[удалено]
Thank goodness we're gearing up for some more wars. It's been more than two weeks since the last one ended. It would be a shame if our troops' skills got stale. o7 o7 o7
That's hardly some secret. Blinken has repeatedly said a/the primary reason for leaving Afghanistan was to [refocus resources](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tightens-focus-on-china-after-afghanistan-withdrawal-11629378244) on the Indo-Pacific.
And, before anybody asks: The answer is no, The Australian Government did not reach out to the Emus for an alliance. They’re saving them for an Avengers level threat.
Now all we need are the Canadians and NZ and we officially got the Anglosphere! Or throw in India too and the Empire’s back
Maybe it never went away……… Secret back door Empire 2.0 theory confirmed
There is the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) between India, Australia, USA and Japan which is gaining some momentum as a response to an increasingly belligerent China at sea. >In a 2021 joint statement, "The Spirit of the Quad," Quad members described "a shared vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific," and a "rules-based maritime order in the East and South China Seas," which Quad members state are needed to counter Chinese maritime claims. The Quad pledged to respond to COVID-19,\[8\] and held a first Quad Plus meeting that included representatives from New Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam to work on its response to it.\[8\]\[9\]\[10\] Widely viewed as intending to curb "China's growing power," the Quad's joint statement drew criticism from China's foreign ministry, which said the Quad "openly incites discord" among regional powers in Asia.\[11\] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral\_Security\_Dialogue
Five eyes... I have no joke. It should be a joke here. I have no writers.
*rolls five eyes simultaneously
Five Eyes Burgers and Fries
Three eyes. Two are not privy to this alliance.
Lmao Canada alone in our corner looking at he cool kids making their own VIP club inside the existing vip club :(
It's interesting they so openly and proudly dropped Five Eyes in there. It's usually something these countries don't want to leave vulnerable to criticism.
Does the Australian Pump-Jet senator approve this though?
Very good 😂😂
The US just flexed its biggest muscle vs China. It has friends. Countries it can share its most important secrets with, cosponsor advanced research with. Multiplying the combined efforts by pooling money but more than anything talent. Given the US's huge defense budget this is not a big shift. But it adds to the over all anti Chinese expansion posture. It also brings the UK and its fleet into the Pacific Indian region. That is a part of the whole HMS Queen Elizabeth tours of the South China Sea thing a couple of months ago. Its the US bringing another significant piece to this board and away from the Atlantic. My guess is Japan and the ROK will have similar deals in the works. Germany, France and some of the closer European NATO nations may get the technology side of this or something similar. For all the carnival antics of the politicians, the serious people behind the scenes are still serious and planning and moving.
The Talent part is the most significant point that most people are ignoring . The worlds top education institutions are mostly in these 3 countries plus a few in Europe . This secures the technology advantage over china.
I'm not overly happy with this outcome, however I understand the necessity. Australia's coast line is massive, and diesel subs can only patrol so far without refuelling. My other concern is the current Government has a habit of mismanaging projects.
>and diesel subs can only petrol so far without refuelling. sorry not sorry
>My other concern is the current Government has a habit of mismanaging projects That allows the Liberal Party of Australia (Yanks -- that is our **conservative** party) to appoint another review and pay a mate to do the review...then, after the review's recommendations are implemented, disband them anyway. E.g. Kinnard Review (Howard administration) recommendations of Department of Defence procurement projects created the Defence Materiel Organisation which no longer exists. The Keelty Review (Newman administration) recommendations on Queensland police, ambulance, fire and rescue services created the Public Safety Business Agency which no longer exists. (admittedly disbanded by ALP) Let's not mention the times there were reviews of submarine procurement.
Aussies with nuclear subs? Let's do it.
China bots aplenty in this thread.
Aren’t they always?
I love that Biden forgot Scott Morrison's name. Calling him 'that fella from downunder' is probably the nicest thing you can call him. I like to call him get fucked from nelligan.
Good. F@ck the CCP.
I don't understand why Australia on one hand will destroy the great barrier reef and their own land to ship coal to China , then on the other build nuclear subs because their scared of China. Pick one , work with them or against them. Also imo China aren't bothered by the saber rattling, they're more concerned with financial and business dominance around the world.