>1- US probably predicts that China is gonna breakthrough the first island chain in the next 10 years.

I think the nuke boats / unicorn tech transfer is sweetner for AU hosting more US assets. Starting ASAP. Just announced more US bombers will be stationed down under. With bombers come ABM, and with ABM, might as well as throw in IRBMs. IMO, it's foot in door for improve US positioning in AU, who has already sunk cost too much into US orbit that the only thing left is to double down. PineGap, Geraldton, Exmouth communication hubs, US is absurdly dependent on AU facilities for Indo-Pac operations. Aforementioned facilities will be targeted by PRC if US containment efforts become kinetic. Ditto with IRBMs, every other country in region has rejected to host because sigifnicant US assets paints target for PRC, but AU is on the hitlist due to existing assets by default.

E: To complete thought, these subs are distraction until they leave the drydock. Chance of smooth aquisition process is 0. At least 8, i.e. only 2-3 deployable at a time. Realistically won't be ready by 2050s if ever since AU has no indigenous nuke industry and struggled with the Collins sub construction. PRC shipyards is primed to launch 2 SSNs per year once design finalized. 6:1 disparity in hulls + host of unmanned systems. A few nuke subs won't shift strategic landscape that much in 30-40 years, but immediate US basing will.

But Australia is 5000 miles away from China, only slightly less than Hawaii. Sure Australia is lower cost with vast land but don't see how that is immediate game changer.

The area in question is the south china sea, and further areas from China.

Probably related to the defense of entire chain of US reliant countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam as well as Australia.

Ultimately, it has to do with commerce as power influences commercial interests as well.

That sounds super vague. Taiwan is economically integrated with China, so are South Korea and to a lesser extent, Japan. Vietnam is dependent on Chinese imports and they share a land border. Most of Australia exports go to China. At peace time this is just posturing. In time of war no one ever doubted Australia would be on the side of the US.

Bases in West Australia where US assets will be deployed are 1/2 distance from to maritime choke points vs Hawaii. Opens up more options.

Will they try to choke Australia exports to China? Joke aside still don't see a lot of value add over Singapore in terms of blockade.

Unless we are talking about posturing?

Sinagpore and ASEAN signalled neutrality, US tried to get them to host IRBM that can reach within SCS within 1st island chain., No takers. QUAD drama means no military alliance, especially India. Leaves JP, US, AU. JP too close to PRC to be relied on if things turn hot. Leaves just US, AU. Add UK who has spare capacity for SSN with US tech. It's pretty much the only option left. The TLDR is there aren't any credible partners who will commit to PRC containment in region except AU whose far enough that protection can be guaranteed by US. Not in terms of security commitment, but just reality. US simply not in position to challenge PRC within SCS especially in 30 years. It's economic suicide pact for everyone else if regional war over TW breaks out. EU Indo-Pac policy also diluted. Arguably UK isn't fully on board but needs the business.

AU is just whose left. It's solid position near relevant 1st island chain SLOC choke points, but also signals how weak US posture in region actually is after lobbying under Trump + Biden. US sharing SSN secrets and pissing off France + timing of EU indo-pac strategy announcement should really raise eye brows. But again, west AU is solid location for now.

I don't understand why France sticks with the USA/UK at this point as they treated as bull-crap. I am sure they could strike a good deal with the Chinese and be better off: like leasing land in the Caribbean Sea or making a joint venture in some weapon. France don't really care about the China Sea in the end.

They should be as "pragmatical" as the Aussie !.

Because France doesn't need to care about China but they do need to care about Russia, and they don't have the ability to counterbalance Russia without the US. This is part of why their nationalist movement to rebuilt their military is growing strength, but they're far from being capable of being independent from the US.

Europe and China are much more naturally aligned in not wanting to see Russia as a dominant military power. Review the history of the cold war if reference is needed.

The sino-soviet split was not an inevitable result of geography.

US is able to output harm while China doesn't have that ability.

Seeing how the Afghanistan war ended I don't think so. The last time the USA properly won a war was when they nuked cities and civilians, whereas China and Russia never went this far. Now given that USA is definitely the more belligerent of the 3, it might happen again.

Sure, but if the US command had for some reason been psychopathic enough, Afghanistan could have been leveled into a barren desert. Wars of occupation are messy and often inherently unwinnable. But the US can absolutely "output harm" anywhere on earth.

Untrue, USA won the Gulf War.

David against Goliath? IRL, Goliath wins.

Could you rephrase your question?

The parent was suggesting basically that the US is not a Goliath (in expeditionary war).

This was not a question but statement. IRL = In Real Life.

You think it would be pragmatic for them to turn away from USA, UK, other EU and Anglosphere states, Japan, etc., and instead start forming military alliances with a genocidal communist dictatorship?

Interesting strategy.

> My observation

I don't think that any of those are observations.. probably more like speculations.

Point #4. Distinction we need to make is that Australia will obtain Nuclear-powered subs, not nuclear weapons. I haven’t seen what “Nuclear Sub” entails with regards to this contract anywhere so please correct me if I am wrong. It’s not breaking the non-proliferation treaty.

It entails in the case of US subs 95% enrichment uranium.

Is making rad bombs trivial? Can you just dump nuclear fuel out of the sub and stick it in a gun-type bomb with no prior experience?

From what I understand, your basic nuclear weapon (WWII tech) isn’t technically difficult to build because the principles are well known. The uranium is the difficult part.

Sure you could extract the fuel rods, but how many weapons will you get out of it? Is having a handful of low yield bombs worth the international sanctions?

I think you’re better off having strategic strike capability with cruise missiles from submarines. They are a lot more flexible and you can have a lot of them without the other nations getting too upset.

These submarines have 95% enrichment fuel. You only need ~10kg to make a high yield weapon with the right design.

You're going to get multiple weapons with the fuel stored in a single submarine.

Cruise missiles are vulnerable. They can be intercepted and shot down, and they give your position away. Low reward, high risk. Nuclear deterrence can certainly be worth it.

I doubt they will use 95% uranium. [This guy](https://theconversation.com/how-do-nuclear-powered-submarine...) says it is about 50%. Still that is the level Iran is being sanctioned at.

The US uses 93-97% uranium as a matter of public record.

Other countries use more weakly enriched uranium, the US and UK are the exception, so I understand the error in the article above.

See this better source ; https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/06/naval-reactors-leu/

I wasn't questioning your numbers but thanks for the reference. I think they are being purposedly vague about this. Transferring weapons grade uranium would be a real threat to the NPT.

Well, it's pretty clear, the US is going to provide weapons grade uranium to Australia. Yes it's highly sensitive under the NPT, but the US doesn't care at all.

If the uranium had lower enrichment, it wouldn't be able to last 25 years, so it's certain that this is weapons grade.

Pretty much, yes. Enrichment is the hard part and US subs have fuel enriched enough for a gun type nuke.

I wonder if the subs have enough quantity of fuel to make a respectable explosion. Like if they need to ditch 8 subs to make a bomb, it is pretty low risk if I were China.

If you run the number, you'll find that a sub is going to have at least a half a ton of highly enriched uranium, perhaps even more than a ton.

You wouldn't even need to ditch a single sub to make multiple warheads, certainly not if you use an implosion design as any country can pretty easily do nowadays.

Yes it's nuclear powered but the argument stands.

> The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) forbids signatories who don’t already have a bomb from making one. It also says they must put sensitive nuclear material, like enriched uranium, under international safeguards, monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a watchdog. But the rules have a submarine-shaped loophole. States are allowed to remove nuclear material from safeguards if they are for “a non-proscribed military activity”, such as submarine propulsion. No non-nuclear-armed state has ever tested that loophole—until now.

Source: https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does...

So it seems that it is technically not violating NPT.