That was known on day 1
Whatever made us throw France under the bus must have been pretty fucking good and also had nothing to do with Subs.
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
102 points (99.0% liked)
World News
32315 readers
847 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Whatever made us throw France under the bus
US interference in the form of diplomatic extortion is my bet.
As soon as I read "diesel," I guessed that.
Mostly the conservatives being unable to think beyond Bush-era “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” stereotypes, I’d bet
A variety of reasons including, rather ironically, concerns about delays: https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/
Even more ironic is a bunch of the delays were caused by Australia demanding the French change the designs from nuclear to diesel
It was scomo he’s a dumb cunt
On an unrelated matter. France needs to be thrown under the bus from time to time. They need the constant pressure of revolution to function properly.
They need the constant ~~pressure of~~ revolution to function properly.
Looking at the last 250 years of history, FTFY
Oh, this looks interesting! Written by... malcom turnball? No thank you.
Yay, also means through AUKUS that we are America’s little bitch. Lets hope Taiwan stays just friends with China.
Otherwise whoops, I guess all those military bases in Australia that the Americans use will become priority targets. Next minute I’m forced to hunt CCP tunnels in Taiwan wondering if I’m gonna be Vietconged
😂
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Scott Morrison’s big idea in Aukus was to cancel a submarine construction program with France which would have given us new boats to replace the Collins-class subs as they retired in the 2030s, with a partnership to build new (as yet design incomplete) nuclear-powered “Aukus SSN” submarines with the UK assisted by the United States, the first of which would not be available, assuming all went on time, until the 2040s.
The Aukus legislation passed by Congress last December specifically states that submarines cannot be sold to Australia unless the president certifies that their sale will not detract from the needs of the US navy.
It is set out, in considerable detail, in an official research paper prepared by the US Congress and is described as a “Military Division of Labor” whereby Australia would have no submarines.
Trump will no doubt be bemused that we would spend money on expanding HIS country’s industrial base rather than our own (and even more amazed we are sending a similar amount to the UK to support the construction of the Aukus SSNs).
There was a window of opportunity to do that after the election of the Albanese government, but it resolved to stick with Morrison’s policy and the risks it carried.
At the time Aukus was announced I was concerned the nuclear-powered submarines, using weapons-grade uranium provided by the US or the UK, would not be able to be operated without foreign supervision and support.
The original article contains 1,211 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!