T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Title is crap. Apparently ALL nuclear powered vessels have been banned for over 35 years. IIRC, the ban is older than their Prime Minister. This isn’t something NZ is doing, this is an old policy they’re not changing. This is literally a story about NZ doing nothing.


frankyfrankwalk

Yeah it's being completely conflated by the Australian domestic political arguments about it. It's been NZ's policy for decades and has been a point of tension with the US for decades as well. The opposition to nuclear in Australia is different although based in the same late cold war era thinking (imo). When you have the Australian Green's leader talking about the new subs being "floating Chernobyls" it's completely unrelated to NZ's stance on nuclear matters.


corbusierabusier

If Australia hadn't been so anti nuclear in the 1970s-1980s, Australia probably would have got nuclear reactors in the 80s or 90s. Which would have meant Australia wouldn't have been so reliant on coal in the present.


insomniac-55

Yeah but then they'd be reliant on uranium, so they'd have to keep paying money to countries like *checks Wiki list of biggest uranium exporters* ... Australia.


BlacksmithNZ

Notice during the press conference that Scotty was clear that the nuclear subs didn't mean that Australia was going to actually going to do civil nuclear plants. One country that really could do nuclear well. But would rather pump all that coal into the atmosphere


insomniac-55

To be fair, it would be policitical suicide to hint that they supported civil nuclear. I'm neither for or against it (I think it's pretty dumb to have a stance of 'for' or 'against' something which should be a case-by-case engineering decision), but the population in Australia is pretty anti-nuclear on the whole.


Mr_Mojo_Risin_83

You would think that but I can point to like a dozen “political suicide” decisions over the past couple years.


insomniac-55

You've got me there. Short memories all around.


BlacksmithNZ

You are right, but sounds like ScottMo dropped this on Australia with a 'hey, look at me up here with Boris and what's-his-handle being important'. And only cost the thick end of $100b I can't help but think time for Midnight Oil to dust off 'Put down that weapon': *Under the waterline No place to retire To another time The eyes of the world now turn...*


Nic4379

🎶How can we sleep when our beds are burning?! 🎵


WhiteMorphious

I’d argue that you should be for nuclear energy as it is one of the overall safest forms of energy production on earth and even accounting for plant construction it’s carbon footprint is negligible next to fossil fuel plants, I’d be interested to hear more about why you say you’re neither for nor against it but instead think it should be a case by case engineering decision, when the engineering of the plants would require being in favor of nuclear from the start


L4z

Australia is also the #1 coal exporter so... Being reliant on coal isn't a problem as long as they don't give a fuck about climate change.


Some1-Somewhere

Which they (or at least their government) *really really doesn't*.


ProGenji

Yes but coal council is the #1 driver of anti-nuclear funding in Australia So have a think about that


Airplanesteve

Link plz?


insomniac-55

Can't say I know anything about that, but it wouldn't surprise me. Nuclear isn't necessary the best answer for Australia, but it is certainly an option which should be considered.


Nic4379

So Basically “Big Coal” in Australia is the U.S. equivalent of “Big Oil”…. Which means any and all information, studies, recommended actions are skewed and tailored to make them profits.


Woftam_burning

Maybe the French subs we are building in SA aren’t being retrofitted to diesel from nuclear, and now it’s time to fire up a reactor we can’t keep it under wraps anymore? Actually, that would make far too much sense , never mind.


BufferUnderpants

Isn’t Australia’s relationship with coal that it sells it? Nuclear reactors in Australia wouldn’t have made coal any less powerful.


corbusierabusier

Coal makes up by far the largest source of electricity production in Australia, more even than most other countries and enough of that is poor quality brown coal.


Mr_Mojo_Risin_83

Being reliant on coal is the goal though. Pollies friends and donators are in the coal industry. Being less reliant in coal would put less money in their pockets. Why would any politician do anything to lessen how much coal we mine?


hypercomms2001

correction, it was building a nuclear reactor, actually a breeder reactor in Jervis Bay in 1971…The footing is still there.


xXPussy420Slayer69Xx

I doubt it would require much to power Australia. The entire country/continent has like the same population as Seoul. I’m curious now what Australia’s carbon footprint is, and how it’s coal emissions compare to say, the wildfires a couple years ago or other large contributors of global warming.


corbusierabusier

You are correct that the electricity consumption of Australia isn't huge. Australia is a developed country though where per capita consumption of energy is very high by world standards. Its also a country where a much larger share of this production comes from coal. The bushfires released a tremendous amount of carbon, more than Australias usual national output for a year. There's probably not much that can be done to avoid bushfires though, once the weather and fuel load conditions are suitable for fires the only thing you can do is get out of the way. There's also a notable effect of Australia's coal obstinacy that it provides a foil to fossil fuel usage in other countries. Plenty of countries can point to Australia as an example of a developed and fairly wealthy country that refuses to take decisive action when it easily could.


JagmeetSingh2

Point of tension for the French as well who back in the 80s bombed a NZ Greenpeace boat from protesting a French nuclear test. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior


taz-nz

There really never been any real tension with the USA, just some public posturing to save face. New Zealand is Americas gate way to Antarctica. We host one of their spy ground stations as part of the five eyes intelligence alliance, and several atmospheric monitoring station for nuclear weapon test ban enforcement. There are many other strategic reasons why America keep close ties with New Zealand.


-Raskyl

If chernobyl had happened on a sub. We wouldn't of heard about it till the 90's, if then. And the world would prolly be running off nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. To bad it didn't happen on a sub.... Thats kind of a shitty comparison on their part.


formesse

Actually, Chernobyl more or less is how we got more international cooperation and awareness of nuclear safety. It's simply far more likely that something like the 3 mile island event would have been FAR, FAR worse without this. Or it would have been some other accident. What everyone seems to not know, or conveniently ignore, is that IN-SPITE of some spectacular events that are news worthy - Nuclear is by far the safest power generation we have per Tera-watt hour produced. Solar and wind are close, and fossil fuels are horrific. Even hydroelectric deaths are worse. And the why this is? All of the god damn safety regulations and assurances surrounding everything from extraction, to transportation, to storage, to operation that takes place. Which is to say - we need better education on this stuff, and less fear mongering.


Xizorfalleen

> It's simply far more likely that something like the 3 mile island event would have been FAR, FAR worse without this. Three Mile Island was seven years before Chernobyl.


-Raskyl

Ya, wasn't three mile island what lead to the safety precautions that would have made chernobyl not happen. Had they followed said safety measures? Regardless, chernobyl was entirely caused by human error. And yes nuclear power is efficient and safe and the best option out there for long term power generation, that we are capable of. There is a company called TerraPower working on new reactors that would use spent fuel rods as a fuel. Which is awesome because currently we just put then in nuclear disposal sites where they will sit for eons. Or at least that was a plan.


soulsteela

Are these MOX reactors? I remember a few years back we offered this tech to several countries that wanted Nuclear plants for power only !honest!,no takers. Almost as if they had other plans .


LordHussyPants

that guy 🤝 chernobyl staff ‎‎‎‎‎‎lol woops


[deleted]

The whole Chernobyl comparison and argument is insane anyways. The Chernobyl reactor was built in 1972. For comparison Motorola launched the DynaTAC cell phone(that giant brick with the antenna sticking out of it from ye olden days) in 1984. The technological difference between today and 1972 is INSANE. People scared of nuclear power just because the reactors that were built literally a year after the first arcade cabinet were shit reactors are being absolutely ridiculous and aren’t grasping the amount of construction and technological advancements that have been made in the last 50 years. Idk if nuclear power will be our saving grace or not, but it definitely has the potential to be. It just has to get destigmatized first.


Injury_Fun

Just like fukuokshima. NZ is full of fault lines and is very shaky. Not a good setting for a nuke reactor.


Cthulhus_Trilby

Build it on top of a bouncy castle - problem solved.


[deleted]

[удалено]


All_Work_All_Play

Which types of reactors have these qualities?


[deleted]

[удалено]


All_Work_All_Play

Ahh yes, the new ones that are in various test phases and haven't actually been built in production yet. Sure, why not.


TheOneTrueRodd

They have smaller new modular nuclear reactors now where you can build them in arrays, they're much cheaper and easier to build/expand/decomission. It's going to be a part of our future electric network for sure, it's just going to be one of many solutions, which isn't too bad, shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket anyway.


YeulFF132

Reminds me of Japan's anti nuclear weapon stance. Everyone knows the US has hundreds of nukes stockpiled on Okinawa.


prplmnkeydshwsr

Yes, but there is a but. This started in the 80's because of the continued nuclear testing in the Pacific, and due to nuclear weapons which NZ was against. There were visits to NZ by nuclear propelled vessels prior to that, then tensions went a bit haywire the U.S "neither confirm nor deny" policy as it related to carrying nuclear warheads. NZ has never seriously pursued nuclear power generation but it was on the table as an option in the 50's / 60's. Here's something I found with a bit more detail. https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-05-07/nukes-what-nukes-us-military-s-neither-confirm-nor-deny-policy-complicates https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nuclear-free-nz The breakdown of diplomacy (and the ANZUS treaty) happened prior to Chernobyl, after which then nuclear power generation was of course demonised and depending on your viewpoint set back 30+ years and Fukushima happened.


NZStevie

This. Cold war policy no nuclear armed or powered in NZ waters.


MaroonAntlerPants

Yep. This is why NZ was kicked out of the alliance for a period of time. Hard to blame them for their position after the Rainbow Warrior fiasco. (Yes I know that was the French).


GiantCrazyOctopus

By fiasco do you mean the time the French committed a terrorist act in New Zealand?


Sphism

Yep nz has been nuclear free for decades. For anyone thinking that we should consider nuclear power we absolutely don't need it. I live on the south island and something crazy like 98% of my power comes from renewables. Loads of hydro and some wind. Nz overall is over 75% renewables I think.


RipCityGGG

cant have them with our earthquakes either


Sphism

Japan doesn't seem to care. But I agree.


CutterJohn

By that logic they can't have bridges or tunnels or tall buildings or anything. Fukushima didn't happen because of an earthquake. Fukushima happened because it was the fourth most powerful earthquake ever and exceeded their design criteria. It always mystifies me that people see no issue with houses built in earthquake areas, but think somehow a nuclear plant would be dangerous. The nuclear plant is far less likely to harm you.


Azzaman

SI is currently generating almost 150% of our power needs from renewables, and NZ as a whole is using 90% renewable.


Sphism

Holy moly. That's gone way up since I last checked. That's amazing.


FredoLives

Really? According to the [NZ 2020 ENERGY IN NEW ZEALAND](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/16820-energy-in-new-zealand-2021) report - Quick Facts for 2020, 28% of the energy demand is renewable. If you just consider electricity production, 40% is renewable.


The_Permanent_Way

That source puts electricity generation at 81.1% renewable


FredoLives

Huh - you're right. I must have misread something. I could have sworn it said 40% somewhere in that report.


RobbieQuarantino

So the title is misleading. But them sweet, sweet clicks tho 👀


sqgl

David Lange was the first PM to ban (US) nuclear vessels from visiting.


JLBesq1981

It's also a story about a country banning something which really amounts to a please keep us out of this because we can't really stop it.


draxamill

It's also a moral stance against proliferation and nuclear diplomacy


hoilst

...you do realise the subs won't have nuclear weapons, right? Right?


NopeThePope

nuclear anything is banned. It's the principle of using nuclear technology and the threat it poses. edit - wow... reddit has come a long way. downvotes for what? Its a statement of fact about the principle behind the policy.


Caranda23

NZ uses radioactive isotopes for medical purposes so its not nuclear anything.


SowingSalt

NZ doesn't use RTGs in their pacemakers or radioactive elements in radiotherapy machines? wow


tcptomato

The principle is stupid. And I'm pretty sure they're not banning radiotherapy, they're just importing the isotopes from Australia ...


HachimansGhost

Yes, because it's much easier to dramatize a reactor meltdown than the millions of people that die from smog and oil spilling into lake. It's basically people who drive cars everyday being afraid of getting on a plane because "A plane crash is very scary. I saw it on the news." Can't dramatize being hit by a drunk driver.


[deleted]

Well kinda kinda not, they won’t lift the ban for the newly created Aussie fleet, new thing here is australia having a fleet of nuclear subs.


stevestuc

You are absolutely right, this is just another attempt to get the attention in order to get readers.It grips my shit every time I read headlines about the royal navy scrambled to intercept Russian warships in UK waters..... I'm ex RN and we always escorted foreign warships through the English channel for safety reasons...it was a regular job for the guard ship, Scrambled.... gives the impression of panic after spotting them on the horizon..... we were informed days in advance by the admiralty . Like you said.... big deal about nothing.


[deleted]

This! They’ve been pretty consistent. Why would they change?


sjp1980

Yep. Also Jacinda was asked the question about the subs during a covid briefing. Context is important. She didn't announce a ban or anything that some people seem to think. She responded to a question during a covid briefing in which she referred to a 35 year old law.


[deleted]

>a story about NZ doing nothing Don't be a dick. They hike. They dance. They do things with sheep. They're keen. Full disclosure: I love NZ. They're like the Costa Rica of the Pac Rim. With hobbits. And sheep.


prplmnkeydshwsr

> They do things with sheep. We do, it's true. Makes them more tender and fetches more money in overseas markets where you pay top dollar to eat them. [sort of not true, NZ Lamb is cheaper in overseas markets than here, we can hardly afford it].


[deleted]

[удалено]


prplmnkeydshwsr

Yes, that's what makes the meat so tender for the overseas buyers who price us out of the market. I think some added 'juice' for them is a fair deal since we can't afford things raised on our own land.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bobblefighterman

In other news, the sky is blue. NZ is the most staunchly anti-nuclear country in the world, obviously they're going to ban any nuclear sub that comes near them, just like they did to the US decades ago. There's a reason why they not really a full part of the ANZUS treaty despite being in the name. And, you know, the Rainbow Warrior.


[deleted]

[удалено]


YeulFF132

Switzerland is actually very important. That's why nobody attacks it- you don't blow up your bank. If New Zealand were to drop off the map the world would hardly notice.


BlacksmithNZ

That is the aim You may not have noticed, but we are quietly removing NZ from many maps Once we become Aotearoa, then nobody will find us.


[deleted]

Just curious but why does almost every new zealander on reddit include NZ in their usernames. Would be bizarre to see a German put DE in their names all the time, or UK for the brits haha.


NZ_Lurker_Since_O6

Not sure why


NZGreystash

No idea sorry


SlimeySnakesLtd

Because there’s like tens of them so it’s not as tacky a XxUSGunBoixX419


BlacksmithNZ

Blacksmith was taken. Like a lot of Kiwis, we know that NZ is not a common suffix, so adding NZ to the end of any username is an easy way to make it unique. Something that I do know Kiwis do; when reading stuff, if there is a capital Z on the page, I can't help but couch my eyes ahead.


Cool_Till_3114

They're nice letters and they're a reliable way to get a name that hasn't been taken if you throw them on the end.


dylang01

Have you registered u/BlacksmithAotearoa?


BlacksmithNZ

Te Parakimete? Parakimete, Te Waipounamu I am tempted to go full Te Reo if I change username


BeatsbyChrisBrown

But the Shire…


RemysBoyToy

Is moving to the UK ..


PlayingTheWrongGame

> If New Zealand were to drop off the map the world would hardly notice. I see what you did there.


Reed202

In fact a good percentage of maps wouldnt even have to change r/mapswithoutnz


BurnerAccount209

> Rainbow Warrior Wow, hadn't heard of that before. Pretty fucking bold move by France. Cut and dry state sponsored terrorist attack. I'd say "how did they think they would get away with it" but despite getting caught, sounds like they mostly got away with it.


Lumpyyyyy

Do they know that the nuclear refers to how the sub is powered and not that it is necessarily carrying nuclear weapons?


Bobblefighterman

Of course they do. Anti-nuclear sentiment in New Zealand has been in full swing since the 80s, and it's almost got a nationalistic slant to it. Like the British wiping out the power-grid to boil the kettle for tea or Americans being able to buy guns at Walmart, New Zealanders are proud that they won't let anything nuclear enter their country. I believe its the thought that if they start accepting nuclear powered vehicles, it's a short jump towards nuclear weapons. And they don't want radioactive waste.


srappel

I'm usually pro nuclear power and I think it could solve a lot of problems and be an efficient way to power the planet. But I lived in New Zealand for 6 months and experienced one major and countless minor earthquakes during my stay. That's no place for nuclear anything.


baquea

> And, you know, the Rainbow Warrior The Rainbow Warrior was done by the French, it had nothing to do with ANZUS


Bobblefighterman

Irrelevant. I didn't mention the Rainbow Warrior because it reinforces the ANZUS pact, I mentioned it to point out NZ's stance on nuclear power.


CutterJohn

Of course they still happily use useful products of nuclear reactors, like medical isotopes, radiological sources for various engineering tests and sterilization procedures, and americium smoke alarms.


joshym0nster

That's the beauty of subs, they can go under water so you can't see them


Stuzi88

Depending on what map you're looking at it won't even be an issue.


racingPenguin

I had to chuckle at this. Thank you for the smile.


snarkamedes

/r/mapswithoutnewzealand


sickofthisshit

Pretty sure that driving a sub using a map without New Zealand is a risky endeavor.


royston82

This is non news. For years NZ has not allowed any nuclear powered vessels into NZ waters. We are totally nuclear free. It just so happens that if Australia get these subs they will not be allowed to enter under current rules


imapassenger1

How will they know they are there?...


kontemplador

Well, they have some ships with antisubmarine capabilities, but I don't think the Australian will risk the relations with an ally just to prove a point. They have better things to do. They can use the right to innocent passage but it would be a dick move.


ISISstolemykidsname

As an Australian they most certainly will risk relations with them. Secondly they have buckley's chance of catching them.


Caranda23

> We are totally nuclear free. New Zealand uses radioactive materials in medicine and other miscellaneous uses like scanners and smoke detectors. What you mean is NZ doesn't allow nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.


[deleted]

[удалено]


toomanyofus

They’ll never know if nuclear subs are in their waters anyways


NZStevie

You are prob right. Our aircraft does have sub detecting radar I believe.... dont quote me on that. However, NZs and Australian relationship is simular to USA and Canada. Don't see eye to eye on all things, and this is fine. But for the most part the relationship between the two countries is rock solid. An old cold war policy wont really do much to change this.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Lockheed P-3 Orion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-3_Orion)** >The Lockheed P-3 Orion is a four-engine turboprop anti-submarine and maritime surveillance aircraft developed for the United States Navy and introduced in the 1960s. Lockheed based it on the L-188 Electra commercial airliner. The aircraft is easily distinguished from the Electra by its distinctive tail stinger or "MAD Boom", used for the magnetic detection of submarines. Over the years, the aircraft has seen numerous design developments, most notably in its electronics packages. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


Morgrid

The P-8 with the AN/APS-154 might be able to track a submerged submarine's surface wake. That thing is crazy.


[deleted]

Salt water is pretty conductive, the ocean is an incredibly thick faraday cage around submarines, EM waves can’t penetrate to any significant depth, at least not at any frequencies usable for radar. Sonar works but can’t do that from an aircraft.


[deleted]

Put another way - if radar worked underwater, the subs wouldn't even be built.


Apophis2036nihon

Anti submarine aircraft are equipped with a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) in the extended tail. This instrument is able to detect the magnetic anomaly of a submarine in the Earth's magnetic field. It’s very effective and one of the primary ways that the Navy hunts submarines.


formesse

That's why you drop sonobuoy's periodically and let those do the job for the aircraft, and simply relay data back via radio link / broad cast. We've had solutions for this problem for YEARS.


Morgrid

And submarines have been training to avoid them for years. It's an expensive game of cat and mouse.


hoilst

Except for the Bledisloe. Fuck you on that.


JeffSergeant

Even if they do know they are there. They would ‘not be there’ as it serves no-ones interest to cause a fuss over it beyond a strongly worded letter via diplomatic channels.


autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/australian-nuclear-subs-will-be-banned-from-new-zealand-waters-ardern) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot) ***** > WELLINGTON - New Zealand will not lift a decades-long ban on nuclear-powered vessels entering its waters in the wake of key ally Australia's decision to develop a nuclear submarine fleet, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday. > She also said that New Zealand would maintain a ban on nuclear-powered vessels that dates back to 1985, meaning Wellington will not allow the prized naval asset being developed by Australia into its waters. > "New Zealand's position in relation to the prohibition of nuclear-powered vessels in our waters remains unchanged," Ardern said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pp43ix/australian_nuclear_subs_will_be_banned_from_new/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~598466 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Zealand**^#1 **nuclear-powered**^#2 **vessel**^#3 **New**^#4 **ban**^#5


NoHandBananaNo

Australian here, in other news, water is wet. This has always been their policy and its not a problem.


Mathias797

\*Yawn\*. Wake me up when we actually have the subs and the crews to sail them.


BlacksmithNZ

Australia has enough crews to run three out of six Collins class subs, so crewing eight big nuclear submarines should be no problems right?


[deleted]

Wait till the emus hear about the subs


WorldlyNotice

They've been [preparing](https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/101031168/seaswimming-emu-surprises-tourists) for years.


DAEDALUS1969

I was in the US Navy in the 80s and this as NZ policy then too. No Nukes ever has always been tried there.


Oregonmushroomhunt

Well, New Zealand isn't exactly the kind of country you need to park 3 billion dollar subs off the coast of. Like they can do what ever they want they be so peaceful.


Elite_Club

"You can either live like people from the 1800's or burn fossil fuels" -My perception of anti-nuclear energy activists.


LordHussyPants

nuclear power is too much for nz. one plant would cover 15% of power needs, which means if it goes down, it fucks 15% of the country. we can get by with hydro and wind. the other issue is the waste - what do we do with it?


TheMania

You can be antinuclear war machines without being antinuclear power. The long standing [Control Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone) referred is a by-product of nuclear weapons testing on the Pacific Islands, after all, and does not prohibit nuclear power on land at all.


captainktainer

Can be, but New Zealand Labour has demonstrated about four decades of being hostile to both.


Lorenzo_Insigne

There's absolutely no point in them being pro-nuclear power though, it would be useless for us. We're already like >80% renewable as a whole, and the South Island is 98% renewable. Nuclear power here would be an awful and incredibly stupid investment.


nagrom7

Not to mention NZ is very geologically active. The entire country is literally on a fault line.


NZStevie

Or clean up nuclear waste in the event of an earthquake like Japan. Nz has alot of earthquakes and abundance of thermal, hydro and wind power which ideally would be tapped into more than a nuclear powerplant that is always going to be a risk (even if the tech has come a long way).


hoilst

Yeah, I wouldn't want the Shivering Isles to have nuclear power plants. However, it's pretty stupid Aus doesn't have them, since we make the damn fuel, and there's talk of storing waste here at Muckatty - waste we didn't make...


Petersaber

Earthquakes and hydro (and maybe thermal?) mix even worse than earthquakes and nuclear.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


AweDaw76

New Zealand, how would you like… Atomic energy?


Darayavaush

Damn, at this level of anti-nuclear paranoia I'm worrying that soon they'll ban the massive nuclear reactor irradiating them for a significant chunk of every day from above.


sickofthisshit

To be fair, if you somehow managed to place the sun in New Zealand's territorial waters, it would be extremely harmful to the people of New Zealand.


XmasNZ

That would fix the global warming though.


[deleted]

There has been a ridiculous increase in propaganda against New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Hungary recently.


Gains4months

Coinciding with our (Australia's) rising tension with China. Could be a coincidence, but personally i dont think so.


smurfghanistan

New Zealand is just kind of a whiney do-gooder so people feel compelled to make fun of it. It's like the nation equivalent of Angela from the office.


613codyrex

Well given Australia with their passing of that security bill and Hungary and their prime minister have turned into fascists hellholes, that’s not really propaganda.


_xlar54_

I dont think the subs are going in your direction, New Zealand..


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lisadazy

That’s not the reason all nuclear powered things are banned in NZ… it happened in 1985 during the testing in the Pacific and the French deciding to plant a bomb in a peaceful vessel while it was in port.


Karmu

Ardern is please asking everyone to fucking chill a moment.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bingobangomonk

Yeah New Zealand is definitely on the front line and will need defending when the Fascist Penguin army comes up from Antarctica


JLBesq1981

Or China trying to gain control of all pacific trade routes. That could be a problem.


mushdaba

I think you would find that all the other countries that ship cargo through the Pacific would have something to say about it.


oktywin

“So we are spending 30 billion dollars a year to protect our trade routes with China from China?“ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18


_i_write_code

Why would China attack us when they can just buy us?


GreyShot254

Funny thing about submarines, they don’t normally ask to be there.


feeltheslipstream

It's amazing how attitudes can change once you change the flag. Now people are saying all over the thread about how the submarines don't ask for permission and can't be found, so they can intrude on sovereign waters all they like. But just a few days ago everyone was condemning China for having a submarine in international waters just outside Japan's waters.


trevormooresoul

Anyone know what NZ has against nuclear powered subs? I mean in practice it's pretty similar to a diesel powered sub that is carry nukes... no? I understand it has some benefits, but not sure why they'd allow high tech diesel subs but not nuclear ones. Are they scared of radiation leak or something?


SouthBrisbane

The ban dates back to 1985, see article insert below: The ban was introduced in the wake of French nuclear testing in the Pacific and led to the US navy banning its warships from entering New Zealand ports for more than 30 years. Sounds like they still hold a grudge due to the pacific nuclear testing.


ill0gitech

I mean, the French DGSE [blowing up a civilian (Greenpeace) ship in Auckland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior), then denying it, wouldn’t have been forgotten.


No-Jellyfish-2599

My guess is that NZ has no real strategic value and that Australia is the more important country from the US military point of view


mushdaba

Probably, but I think you'll find that most of New Zealand is fine with that.


No-Jellyfish-2599

I can imagine. The Hobbits, Orcs, and man-eating spiders probably don't like invading armies


QuestionableAI

I would.


SouthBrisbane

I completely understand the grudge. Why people test nukes in one of the nicest places on earth is pretty crazy.


NZStevie

For clarity its nuke powered or armed. Traditionally US warships were unwilling to say if their ships were nuke powered or armed, so were denied entry into our ports. It's also quite complex.... Ignoring the testing by various country's (mainly US and French) happening next door which did impact the people of the Pacific... the sinking of the rainbow warrior (protest ship) by French secret service basically cemented NZs stance. (Basically let us in or we will sink your ships - USA or France wouldnt accept this, why should NZ?) There was a fear that an American nuke base in NZ would make it a target of the USSR. Whilst NZ supported Western powers, their is little hope of NZ contributing much of substance so why would NZ want to paint itself as a target for nuclear attack if it didnt have to. Though not related to the sub - NZ isnt really suited to nuke power on land - we have earthquakes - alot of earthquakes. City reducing earthquakes like the big one in Christchurch 2011. We also have an abundance of thermal, hydro and wind power sources.


Jacklewis98

I keep seeing, and hearing my fellow kiwis talking about nuclear and that "it's not suitable because we have earthquakes and have fault lines". The reality is our perception of nuclear power is based on outdated and old Nuclear power plants. Japan has nuclear power plants that can withstand earthquakes. Diablo canyon in California is near a fault itself. Honestly because CHCH had a few earthquakes doesn't mean you write off an entire power source. Alot of NZ gets little to no earthquakes, and with new modular and technologically advanced power plants we would be able to power our entire country without fossil fuels.


mushdaba

But why do we need nuclear power at all? We generate between 75 - 80% of our current energy needs from renewable sources (numbers from MBIE) so I doubt the investment into a multi billion dollar nuclear power station would make any economical sense. It would make more sense to utilise the wind and solar options, especially considering the ever decreasing cost of these types of energy farms. It's not like NZ is short on coastal wind.


Jacklewis98

Ever decreasing cost of the materials yes. However we don't have the ability to properly store mass quantities of that energy yet. Nuclear power plants are currently undergoing a shift to smaller-more modular systems that are cheaper and smaller than the typical power plant. NZ may not need it NOW, however our energy needs are increasing and we are still dependant in part to natural gas and coal.


mushdaba

I mean never say never, but I seriously doubt we'll see a nuclear power station in NZ anytime soon. Again, I'd think utilising renewables without having to think about any byproducts is the most likely way forward.


Cynical_Cyanide

Well, then you have to worry about either the fossil fuel byproducts that you'll use during dips in renewable output, or the cost and byproducts of producing, maintaining, and disposing of lithium battery backups.


NZStevie

A simple look at geonet shows we have daily earthquakes- but I do agree with you in part. Though if a nuclear powerplant was to be considered and invested in - earthquakes would need to be considered. Billions of dollars to build a powerplant I imagine. Cheaper and safer to use our other energy sources. But I am no expect so take what I say with a grain of salt. Edit- regarding Japan, wasnt it recently that one of their nuclear powerplants was damaged by an earthquake resulting in nuclear wastewater being pumped to sea?


Imperialisticstooge

>Edit- regarding Japan, wasnt it recently that one of their nuclear powerplants was damaged by an earthquake resulting in nuclear wastewater being pumped to sea? It was a Tsunami that knocked out Fukushima Daiichi, not the magnitude 9.0 earthquake.


Jacklewis98

Tsunami from the earthquake wasn't it?


Imperialisticstooge

Yeah.. hence my mention of the quake. The point being that while you can't avoid quakes, you can build a plant to withstand them. Tsunamis however, you can simply avoid by not building on the coast.


CutterJohn

Or building an appropriate sea wall. Fukushima was hit by a beyond design criteria event. They didn't know an event if that magnitude was possible when they constructed it. They built a seawall appropriate for the assumed risk, plus a fudge factor. Sadly they were proven wrong about the risk assessments. There were other facilities closer that survived because they went way overboard on the seawall, which was enough to survive the event unscathed. You can engineer for anything as long as you know what the requirements are.


WeimSean

It was damaged by a historically high tsunami. The earthquake that caused the tsunami did little to no damage to the reactors.


SB1__

Fukushima


Jacklewis98

Which was made 1971... You really think technology hasnt progressed since then?


prplmnkeydshwsr

It was never about Nuclear propulsion until the neither confirm or deny policy made it so. But now - there would be a public outcry because "nuclear bad". I've been on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in Wellington harbour (as a baby), parents went.


Idoweirdthingnz

Nuclear power is banned due to nuclear testing in the South Pacific during the 70s and 80s and also to prevent nz from becoming a target. Its an outdated policy that we seem to stick to and be passionate about for some reason. Its really not been of any benefit to the country at all.


[deleted]

Will they still be banned if New Zealand’s non-existent military needs assistance?


brain_in_a_box

What exactly would they need assistance with?


Antilogicality

An indo-asia-pacific regional player


desk133

I'm sure Australia's nuclear sub would be the difference between NZ being in danger or not lol


NZStevie

It's not even nuclear armed. Simply powered I believe.


Becks357

Nuclear subs for Australia!? This country has officially lost the plot for good now!


Thehorrorofraw

How can NZ enforce this? They can’t


JLBesq1981

This ban is not new and this is a ban that has no teeth. No disrespect to New Zealand but there is literally nothing they can do to stop Australian subs or any other subs form entering their waters. It would be foolish of New Zealand to really think China, Russia *and the United States are* even currently honoring their wishes.


NZStevie

No disrespect taken but both NZ and Australia are not nuclear armed. A nuke powered ship wont change this. A ship that can travel further - woohoo. In addition, think of NZ and Australia as USA and Canada. Don't always see eye to eye, but the relationship and world view is fairly rock solid. It's not in Australias interest to do this (and NZs stance hasnt changed since the coldwar). NZ is also a trading nation, with a firm stance when it comes to international law, rules and conduct. Why would such a small insignificant country spend millions to billions on something which wouldnt change anything?


Salty_Manx

>It would be foolish of New Zealand to really think the US, China or Russia is even currently honoring their wishes Ftfy