Hacker News Reader

Comment by cturner | Hacker News Reader

"breach of a worldwide agreement"

I don't see anything in NPT that forbids the US and UK from supplying nuclear propulsion to Australia. They are not supplying nuclear warheads.

The reason the French are pissed are strictly commercial. But that is on Naval Group. As soon as the deal was struck between Australia and Naval Group, Naval Group were changing the terms, and were years behind on some of the earliest deliveries. Had the project been going well, Australia would not have spent political capital seeking this new deal.

View on HN

It may be convenient to blame the French (isn't it always?) and indeed the deal was not going smoothly, but these are hugely political decisions and I think a key to what has happened is American pressure on Australia.

The French are not only 'pissed off' for commercial reasons. The deal was part of a long term strategy of France in the region, with India and Australia being the two main partners, so this has serious consequences for them beyond a simple arms sale.

Now, on the other hand, two good questions are whether the Australian ever discussed the possibility of France supplying nuclear-powered submarines instead of conventional ones, and whether France would have accepted. I don't know the answer to either though I'm doubtful about the latter and that may be an objective and very good reason for Australia to switch.

French nuclear deterrent is entirely developed in house, whearas the UK one is US power plant, warheads and missiles with British naval architecture. Maybe the French didn’t give them nuclear tech for security reasons, same way no-one else is allowed to buy America’s top end stuff.

The French did offer to sell Australia nuclear subs in 2016, but Australia chose not to go with that option.

The missiles are US but I was under the impression the warheads on UK tridents are UK built. No US warheads involved.

> I don't see anything in NPT that forbids the US and UK from supplying nuclear propulsion to Australia.

And yet it's a tacit agreement among nuclear nations to not sell military nuclear equipment to non-nuclear nations (ie who don't have at least a civilian program).

Which is why North Korea for ex has never been able to buy nuclear equipment from China or Russia. So far, because now that the US has decided breaking the rule for a short term financial gain was worth it, other's will decide that they might as well help their own allies too with a few reactors.

North Korea can't buy nuclear equipment from those countries because it has withdrawn from the NPT entirely, and it doesn't have a safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

North Korea's Yongbon Nuclear Reactor was supplied by the Soviet Union. Russia came very close to selling North Korea a 200 MW reactor in the early 90s but the deal fell through when North Korea refused to pay. In 1994, the United States agreed to build 2 1000 MW reactors in North Korea as part of the Agreed Framework, which was only suspended after North Korea withdrew from the NPT.

There is not nor has there ever been any prohibition on providing nuclear technology and equipment to non-nuclear weapons states. In this particular case, France offered to sell Australia nuclear submarines back in 2016 and Australia decided against it, but one of their reasons for going with the French proposal was that the submarines could be converted to nuclear in the future.

> North Korea's … Reactor was supplied by the Soviet Union.

In 2000, the Swiss company ABB signed a contract to deliver not one, but two nuclear reactors to North Korea.

Here's the bit that should drain anyone of all faith in politicians: Donald Rumsfeld was an ABB board member at the time.

[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/rumsfeld-was-on-abb-board-durin...

Does this qualify as a civilian program?

https://www.ansto.gov.au/research/facilities/opal-multi-purp...

the French deal was absolutely crappy to begin.

Follow the money. Christopher Pyne brokered this $50Bn deal to get re-elected (some boatbuilding would happen in SA) which blew out to $90Bn and rising.

Pyne immediately retired (got his pollie-perks-for-life golden ticket stamped) and then immediately became "employed" as a consult with the people profiting massively from this twisted deal against the public interest.

Pyne followed the same slimy playbook as Andrew Robb (4) who sneakily slipped the 99-year Darwin Port dodgy deal across the line, and then he got a free $880k "job" with them the day he left parliament shortly thereafter.

Borderline treasonous behavior is rife with our political elite (both sides stink badly)

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/would-you-employ-ch...

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/pyne-poisons-ey/

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/01/audit-office-torped...

(4) https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/06/chinese-sell-andrew...

>The reason the French are pissed are strictly commercial.

No, they're not. The sub deal with Australia was just part of a broader Pacific strategy to which Australia was central. Now that Australia sent the signal that it was to be a plugin in the US foreign policy rather than a country of its own, the entire strategy is dead and needs to be reworked. It's a major setback. It coming from the Nth sabotage of the French defense industry by the US is just the cherry on the top.

Just out of curiosity why would the French even have a Pacific strategy?

We have territories in the Pacific, most notably New Caledonia (Australia's closest neighbour, I believe), and a huge EEZ [1].

[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Map_of_t...

reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xykDDyHDTZY

Australia's closest neighbour is Papua New Guinea - the closest Australian island is only 4km from the PNG coast.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com