Power requirements on a sub vs a civilian power plant are on a different scale. A vessel reactor is small enough it easily contained and shielded, by comparison. You get free cooling. And it doesn't have to be cost effective.
I'd like more civilian reactors too. But scaling is an issue.
No one gets nuclear power, including the people with the subs. We're all phasing it out, out of a shared understanding that the political fight is worse than the climate and other impacts of just letting it die.
> the US would help Australia develop a nuclear submarine capability
I wonder what help means? Is the US building the subs and turning them over to Australia, are they giving them plans and specs so they can build them themselves, or something in between?
If historical Australian submarine deals are anything to go by construction work will be split between Australia and the US.
I think it’s safe to assume Australia will want to develop a full maintenance capability in Australia, which realistically means developing a manufacturing capability.
The US has been providing similar help to the UK since the 1960s. There, the US provided the missles (first Polaris, then Trident) and their launch tubes, while the UK built their own warheads and subs though I seem to recall the US's providing information (obtained from nuclear tests IIRC) important for warhead design and maybe nuclear material (i.e., plutonium).
Probably - "We'll allow you to buy 20 billion worth of submarines from our contractors if you guarantee our purchase of 20 billion worth of raw mining materials"
These are replacing the 12 subs ordered from France, itself replacing 6 current Collins class due for replacement in the early 2030s. The french contract was missing deadlines, and there is even less chance these boats will be on schedule considering they're nukes. So total 6 extra hulls, typically 1/3 will be deployed while others train or maintain. Does extra presence of 2 subs dramatically affect PRC strategic planning in the 2040s/50s. Maybe, but not that much.
There's always a new threat. Communism around the globe, middle eastern dictators, Islamic terrorism, Russia now China.
All very convenient. "Every War in the past 50 Years is a Result of Media Lies" Jullian Assange
If Australia are so concerned about China then stop selling them minerals, stop buying their products etc.
Is that a joke? If China invades Taiwan and the nuclear umbrella is proven to be a fraud, the entire world order will come to a screeching halt as Japan and South Korea kick off an asia-wide arms race, because they have to.
The fact this downvoted shows the level of discourse on HN.
Anyone paying even a little bit of attention to the situation in Asia Pacific knows this is accurate. Old enemies are finding common ground in opposition to China.
It's going to come as a big shock to a lot of people that the two major global superpowers aren't actually friends, even if people in the technology space all think otherwise.
Is this a joke? And what exactly is Australia (and UK and USA) going to do should China invade Taiwan? Please tell me, I am dying to know. They couldn't beat barefoot Taliban in 20 year's time, do you really think Five Eyes have any capacity for a full blown war with a nuclear power such as China? Please just stop with this nonsense. The only real enemy these countries have are their governments.
The World Order where small countries aren't simply annexed by superpowers, like it used to happen during the WWI and WWII era.
Has the US increased the number of its states any time recently? No.
Meanwhile, Russia just waltzed into Crimea and is threatening the rest of Ukraine. China annexed Tibet, then just skipped a few decades of the planned transition of Hong Kong, going straight to the "one China" step and jailing anyone who has different ideas. They're now threating to take over the entire South China sea, and I guarantee you Taiwan is next. Just because of TSMC alone it's incredibly valuable to their long term plans.
China has clearly stated these ambitions, and then followed through with military action repeatedly.
Just recently, they imposed trade sanctions on Australia that ended tens of billions of dollars worth of exports simply because our PM had the wherewithal to suggest that it might be a good idea to investigate the origins of the Coronavirus. When interviewed on TV, their diplomat directly threatened us, saying that our behaviour is unacceptable and has "consequences".
This was not normal for decades. Russia and China want to go back to the "before times" when superpowers went to war to divvy up small countries in between them.
Now the "consequences" are that the little guys are tooling up with nukes.
This is the new World Order forming, and China is directly responsible for it happening.
Direct land acquisition is out of fashion only because there are better ways of control. That "world order" is indistinguishable from the systematic use of force and economic sanctions to make sure the "little guys" comply with the agenda of the big one.
I feel stupid to have to phrase such a banality, hopefully you are not just acting naive?
Edit: Indeed, the big one may slowly be losing its advantage due to China development, leading to some readjustment. We should have little preference though, as to which world disorder we prefer.
The Chinese are actively trying to establish control of their territories and it's surprising that anyone thinks that there isn't a real threat to global security which comes with that.
If countries are genuinely concerned about China, then start to disengage commercially with them. Stop buying stuff from them, invest in production of alternative sources for white goods and electronics and cars and plastic stuff.
Stop selling them Iron ore and stop encouraging them to invest in your country.
Also start to positively engage with the rest of the developing world. Not by handcuffing them with monetary deals from the IMF and world bank, but with genuine selfless goodwill and repatriation to help them develop in sustainable ways.
You understand that there are about 1,000 different approaches to China that one could take and “economically cutting them off” is clearly escalating things? My impression is nobody really wants to go to war so it’s all soft power projection in the hopes some resolution (even temporary) can be found.
And you can’t view the China situation in a vacuum. It’s not like the Asia Pacific countries are all lined up perfectly, it’s all a balance between multiple countries with dozens of competing interests.
Not that I don’t disagree that the media selectively reports stories that are pushed by stakeholders with something to gain. But that’s nothing new. Listening to CNN (or any media outlet) won’t actually make you smarter.
"New Zealand was suspended from ANZUS in 1986 as it initiated a nuclear-free zone in its territorial waters; in late 2012 New Zealand lifted a ban on visits by United States warships leading to a thawing in tensions. New Zealand maintains a nuclear-free zone as part of its foreign policy and is partially suspended from ANZUS, as the United States maintains an ambiguous policy whether or not the warships carry nuclear weapons and operates numerous nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines; however New Zealand resumed key areas of the ANZUS treaty in 2007."
