What an incredibly risky and stupid move. I am so interested in the circumstances around this. Why did an (apparently) intelligent person do something so incredibly stupid?
I suspect more information about the motives in this case will come to light, but two explanations come to mind: 1) People who are incredibly intelligent in one domain, are often not particularly intelligent in another. Especially with a highly specialized discipline like engineering, if you spend a lot of time developing your abilities in one area, it often comes at the expense of other areas. 2) People often make entirely rational decisions according to their circumstances, that may appear irrational to someone who can't see the whole picture. Perhaps there was some kind of duress or other factor that caused them to take a risk that seems stupid without being able to see the whole picture.
Perhaps he misread the situation and imagined France would be receptive given that fact.
If it was France, maybe he selected a an ally which isn't an adversary to the US but has been critical of the USA (in particular of the former administration)
It must be more exotic like Turkey or Iran no? And even then...
And I cant find a cause we d incarnate for an american traitor: their either want a lot of money, which we wouldnt provide when we already have nuclear subs and a mature military research industry, are very communists which we're not or very far right lunatics which we're not.
I think Israel is more likely (underdog in a sea of sharks for some), Iran (unfairly treated), Russia/China (will show those libtards) or an oil giant in the middle east (money) or maybe some south american thing.
I mean the guy is an idiot but France, I wouldnt betray any other country for it and Im French... what we dont do ourselves we dont deserve.
Nuclear subs don't make sense over diesel+AIP in the Med or the Persian Gulf or Red Sea - these seas are too narrow or too shallow, so nuke subs would be detected much sooner, cost much more, and be far larger. Having longer trips does not cover all these drawbacks for countries that must base in these areas. Nuclear subs are for blue-water navies, not green-water navies.
Iran/Russia/China are out for reasons pointed out elsewhere in the comments. UK wouldn't need translation (though the idea of 'translating' a spynote into Chav is IMHO incredibly amusing). South American governments obviously don't have money for this.
That leaves us with France or - more exotically - Spain/South Korea/Japan. The latter three don't have nuclear subs, but wouldn't be entirely mad to consider them. However, if the recipient has an existing industry, France is the only remaining logical contender.