(1) Nuclear power does not necessarily = nuclear proliferation. It depends on the specifics of the case, and to claim that assisting Australia in the development of nuclear-propelled submarines amounts to nuclear proliferation is dubious to say the least.
(2) Given a capability to build and operate the latter, the choice between advanced conventionally powered submarines and nuclear-powered submarines is a question of strategy. For countries like Germany and Sweden, whose navies operate in such restricted waters as the Baltic and the North Sea, conventionally powered attack submarines make sense. But given Australia's strategic priorities and geographical situation, nuclear attack submarines constitute the obvious choice. The speed, range, endurance and stealth of SSNs make them far superior to even the most advanced conventional submarine, especially in the Pacific. And if SSNs are going to be procured, doing so in partnership with the US and the UK is the best option. Since 1954, the US Navy has amassed unrivalled experience in the design and operation of nuclear-powered submarines. The UK is not far behind, having commissioned its first SSN in 1963.
(3) It may seem remarkable that eight SSNs for the RAN are envisioned, but in order to keep three or four boats operational at all times, six to eight would be required.
(4) France's angry reaction to the loss of the Australian contract undoubtedly has something to do with the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. The Biden Administration's incompetence in that instance left the French government fit to be tied; now comes the loss of a $60 billion contract. Of course it was the Australian government that pulled the plug, probably deciding that the French proposal for a conventionally powered version of its SSN design was not a good idea.
(5) A strong force of SSNs armed with standoff weapons like the Tomahawk cruise missile is probably the most cost-effective deterrent to Chinese aggression. For instance, in the event of an attempt to invade Taiwan, submarine-launched cruise missile strikes on the ports of embarkation of the invasion force would be an effective early response, buying time for the deployment of reinforcements to the region.
It depends partly if nuclear-propelled submarines are powered by low "commercial" grade enriched uranium like France's are or highly enriched "weapons grade" uranium like the US' and UK's are. In the case of low enriched uranium nuclear propulsion the risks of proliferation are really no greater than that of land-based nuclear power plants. The main difference in the French case is France does NOT allow the same level of international inspection of it's nuclear submarine fleet that it does allow of the large land based EDF nuclear power fleet.
So the key issue is that there has been a longstanding norm to eliminate usage and cross border transfer of HEU(Highly Enriched Uranium) for the better part of 30 years now. Obviously Australia having to obtain HEU to fuel submarines would be a big violation of this norm and something France both as a nuclear power and a commercial competitor is going to have a lot to say about.
Now from the Australian standpoint there are definitely some things in favor of wanting to buy US nuclear powered subs over French nuclear powered subs notwithstanding whether they are power by LEU(Low Enriched Uranium) or HEU. One is obviously the US has simply built a lot more nuclear subs in the past 50 to 60 years. The first French SSBN was only commissioned in 1971 and the first French SSN in 1983. France however, is the only country other than the US with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier FWIW. Second while the French Navy has invested much of it's R&D on making French nuclear subs have more commonality with land based commercial nuclear power the US with Virginia Class while still using HEU has also eliminated the need to refuel it's subs every 4 or 5 years. In fact the Virginia has no refueling capability and once fueled during construction is intended to last for the lifetime of the sub.
Well, norms that don’t distinguish between rogue states like Iran and reliable US allies like Australia actually don’t make much sense, at least to me.
On the whole, for the reasons that you elucidated, I think that it’s wise of Australia to partner with the US on procurement of SSNs. One other consideration that occurs to me is crew training. Together, the USN and the RN can offer a lot in that regard.
Well I can say that Chuck Schumer for example historically was a strong opponent of HEU sales even to close US allies like the Netherlands and Canada(which used it for research reactors to make medical isotopes). Another issue is the US doesn't make HEU anymore and hasn't in over 30 years. What the US does have is a still large Cold War era stockpile of HEU leftover so to speak but I won't last forever and when you start talking the 2040 time period you are getting into the timeframe when the US is going to be rather low on HEU. The symbolism of this is important as all 5 of the "official" nuclear powers have stopped making HEU after 1990.
The reason France made the transition in the early 1990s is they had a far smaller amount of HEU stockpiled after production stopped but France also had a very big commercial LEU sector and a lot of experience using LEU for power generation. Interestingly I suspect if Australia went to France and said were going to buy nuclear subs from the US but we also want to buy some land-based commercial nuclear plants from France for power generation France would jump at that trade. Problem is Australia in making this announcement on nuclear subs seems to be re-iterating even more so that they will never ever ever using nuclear power on land to generate electricity. In fact one reason the Brits may not been in the doghouse as much as the US and Australia in this ess is not because of what France is claiming i.e. that the UK is the lapdog of the US but the UK has been re-iterating for a while that France is it's preferred partner for civil land-based nuclear power generation.
**There are some different things the US could offer France to calm down row but I think the issue is the US quite rightly isn't sure why it is their role to fix this thing and not Australia's instead. It is Australia that refuses nuclear power as a land based electricity generation source as a matter of principle not the US, UK, or France(or a whole bunch of other countries)
I am going to respond back to Eric Hines a bit later when I get some more time but something I want to point out big picture to CG's like Owen Lewis and Robert Zubrin is if you want to make greater use of advanced technologies like using re-useable rockets for point to point transportation on earth and to use advanced nuclear technologies for space exploration then not only you are going to have to maintain existing non proliferation norms you are going to have to strengthen them even further i.e. if Elon Musk wants to fly point to point Starship rocket flights between NYC and Shanghai you are going to to have to find some way to assure to Chinese that a SpaceX Starship is what it is and not an incoming nuclear armed ICBM. While people like Elon Musk have indicated their desire for such technologies we have yet to have a conversation on the rules and legalities of doing so.
Couple things, in no particular order, so this will come off (sorry) as rambling.
One is that the French attitude toward the US is...meh. The French, over this, also canceled a dinner commemorating the 240th anniversary of the Battle of the Capes, a French-English fight of some minor use to us in our Revolutionary War.
Keep in mind that France never has been a real friend. Their real involvement in our Revolutionary War came late and only because our win, which seemed likely only late, would harm Great Britain to French advantage. Benefit to us was a tool not an end.
Keep in mind, too, their arrogance toward both us, and toward Great Britain (another signatory to the AUKUS), in their insistence that they should lead the march through Paris late in WWII, instead of either of the two armies that had actually liberated France leading that celebratory stroll.
Too, they bolted from the military arm of NATO and demanded our total departure from France, relenting only slightly and only when LBJ asked if we should withdraw all of our dead in French cemeteries, too.
France still holds a grudge against us over that last because we wouldn't help them maintain their SEA-based colonial empire. (We stepped on the Brits, too, over the Suez Canal a short time later, but we both got over that.)
And they've always been full of anti-American rhetoric of greater or lesser seriousness.
It's certainly true, and stupidly arrogantly so, that the Biden-Harris administration should have coordinated better with France over the sub deal (into which we entered late and after France and Australia were approaching the signing step) and over the AUKUS deal. But that did real damage only slightly, given France, its French Polynesia holdings, has nothing to contribute to the Pacific region, and has had nothing since the Vietnamese ran them out of SEA.
It's also instructive that France's ire is directed against us, publicly at least and not against Australia, who is the one that walked away late in the deal. Was Australia's decision really a surprise? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know what behind the scenes discussions were going on between Australia and France over the sub deal before frustration boiled over and Australia took a decision.
The idea that Australia will build the subs instead of buying off the shelf (hopefully, had that been their decision, anyway, "off-the-shelf" would have been heavily updated) will be hugely expensive is to be expected--as an upfront cost. The Aussies will be gutsing up a new industry. But it's a capability that they need to bring in-house, anyway, and it will pay dividends in the mid- to long-run.
The idea that they're buying/building 8 SSNs and that that will be more than either France or UK have also is not surprising. As noted at the outset of this article, Australia is surrounded by vasty amounts of water. I'll add that it is, for the most part, hostile water, with the PRC occupying international water and islands (and disputed among the South China Sea rim nations) islands and so sitting on Australia's front yard gate. UK and France, on the other hand, operate in much smaller and much safer waters, at least relatively.
France says they were excluded from AUKUS? Based on what facts, other than their smiling faces? There is a world of difference among being excluded, being not invited in, and being not interested when the idea came up quietly. The most likely difference here, though, is the difference between being excluded and not being invited. But what value, really, would France add to the arrangement? French Polynesian naval base(s)? How many non-French NATO troops are stationed in France, even after they rejoined the military arm of NATO? The US, for what we're worth under the Biden-Harris administration, has a large military presence throughout the Pacific, the UK has a large diplomatic and influence presence and a capability to put serious naval units there, and Australia is a willing base of operations that is actively looking to strengthen its own military presence.
The thing is there is a non proliferation issue. While France might be totally cynical in exploiting it even a broken clock is right twice a day. The truth is no country with nuclear submarine technology has ever given it to another nation that is a non nuclear weapons state under the NPT(with the exception of the Russian selling a second hand sub to India which as everyone knows isn't part of the NPT and is a nuclear weapons state anyways).
I myself have a lot of different views on this deal I think some of the Globalists like Monique Camarra and Jakub Jakunda are missing the fact that there is a long strain of deep concern about nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation that cuts across both party and ideological lines in the US. Both Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump for example both made statements about eliminating all nuclear weapons. This is hardly just a left wing thing in the US. The truth of the matter is the risk/rewards ratio for nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation more broadly has always been rather low for the US. I would say that nuclear weapons and to a lesser extent terrorism are two of the very few existential threats to the American homeland surrounded by oceans on both sides. The Manhattan Project was really started in fear of the axis powers getting a nuclear bomb first and using it against the United States and after it turned out they were nowhere close to doing so the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was very controversial in the US among both Republicans and Democrats(Eisenhower famously opposed Truman in public over it)
All of this sentiment continued throughout the Cold War. Ronald Reagan in many ways saw SDI as a prelude to the elimination of all nuclear weapons to the famous dismay of Margaret Thatcher who was far more comfortable with nukes and saw them as far more important to Great Britain's national survival than Reagan did to that of the United States. So is and would be Macron be a bastard, asshole, cynical jerk, whatever swear word you want to use, to try to exploit these deeply held American feelings to get the US and in particular the US Congress and US public to put the kibosh on this deal? Yes, but that doesn't actually matter that much. Successful politicians are in fact bastards, asshole, and cynical jerks.
I would finally conclude that having a big debate about nuclear proliferation just days after the Milley revelations in the US is just about the worse timing possible in the US domestic political space.
"The thing is there is a non proliferation issue. "
No. There's only custom. The NPT has nothing to do with the sort of nuclear tech that might be transferred to the Aussies with this deal.
The whole point of nuclear weapons for us and for the Brits is as deterrent and equalizer. We--so far, the Biden-Harris administration might have different ideas--decline to lose a war and be conquered and enslaved because we lost the conventional war without recourse. Reagan's SDI was further to neutralize the Soviets' nuclear missile threat and just as prominently to engage the Soviets in an economic and technology race they had no hope of winning.
Trump wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons, but not before everyone else did, too, and verifiably so. Verifiability which Iran is demonstrating the stupidity of and Russia only recently demonstrated the stupidity of regarding theater nuclear weapons.
For the Brits nuclear weapons may very well be an equalizer, Margaret Thatcher very much thought so when Reagan was going to sell her down the river at Reykjavik but the idea of using nuclear weapons beyond that of a deterrent to "equalize" conventional military strength has long been controversial since the days of the Manhattan project in the US(Your ideology Eric is more in common I suspect with Curtis LeMay than Ronald Reagan on this question).
In terms of SDI the primary goal was to make obsolete the ICBM's of the both the US and the USSR. In fact Ronald Reagan very much wanted to share SDI technology with the USSR as a trust building exercise and a first step to move forward with mutual disassembly of the US and USSR nuclear arsenals. The thing is and why Thatcher was so upset was the SDI and Reagan's proposals for disarmament did nothing to offset Soviet conventional military strength which had long exceeded the West's during the Cold War in effect the Soviet position in Europe would have been made stronger by the elimination of nuclear weapons in particular ICBM's and SLBM's with Europe(other than France with its own nuclear technology)having to bear the burden of losing the American nuclear umbrella.
In some ways Thatcher was saved by Gorbachev who for different reasons at Reykjavik did not want to go down the two step track advocated by Reagan for SDI then nuclear disarmament. Reagan also notably stabbed in the back some of his own "Cold Warrior" supporters which I suspect included yourself Eric, along with WigWag and Thomas M Gregg who did not at all in there minds vote for Reagan to bring about nuclear disarmament however, nonetheless Reagan though was operating in a deep tradition of American on nuclear weapons again going all the way back to the Manhattan project.
Or, Reagan offered SDI tech to Gorbachev knowing full well the offer would be rejected, which would give Reagan a further leg up in the arms race he'd started explicitly to defeat the Soviets. The INF treaty further played into his hands (and Thatcher's, although she either didn't know of/understand the bluff or didn't believe it was a bluff) since SDI at the time was helpless against theater-only missiles.
The Soviets also had OPLANs for fighting and winning a nuclear war, which made neutralizing their missiles without neutralizing ours important.
The Soviets, after all, would have needed a whole lot of other, more baseline, tech before they could understand, much less use, SDI tech.
Or he was serious and screwing this one up and saved, as you suggest, by Gorbachev's refusal.
The NPT does and doesn't. As a strict matter the NPT doesn't in anyway ban this sort of nuclear technology or the transfer of it however, military uses of nuclear power are exempt from IAEA "safeguard" protocols that are in put in place to prevent the diversion of nuclear technology from civil and peaceful purposes for weapons. The IAEA can for example inspect civil nuclear power plants used for research and power generation even in the NWS states however it cannot inspect nuclear powered submarines or naval surface vessels. Again a highly technical issue.
One possibility is Australia with the help of others like the US could create a completely new propulsion technology that they would allow to be within the boundaries of IAEA safeguards akin to what the US did back in the day with the NS Savannah but this would have to be something completely new that did not include any of the elements of current UK, US, or French submarine propulsion technology that those countries have historically NOT wanted to be under IAEA inspection.
But the UK IS an NWS state under the NPT, Australia isn't. The UK also already had nuclear weapons in 1958 i.e. the "V-Bomber" based on it's own technology. It is in the present after the UK retired the V-Bomber that the UK is now completely dependent on the US for nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion for there Submarines(the later started under the first Polaris agreement). Even so 1958 was a long time ago and a lot of things have changed. I would say the US is probably more afraid of proliferation now than back then(that was the height of the "missile gap").
In fact this I suspect might require changes to the McMahon Act which will be political poison depending on how loudly Macron complains. The McMahon Act predates the NPT but basically the 1958 amendments(prior to which the was absolutely no atomic info sharing going back to 1946) say the US can only transfer nuclear technology to allied countries that have already obtained such technology indigenously. France interestingly falls under the McMahon Act too and the US does share research information with France under its provisions too but it is much more of a "hard science" nature as France unlike the UK builds everything in house for the force de frappe.
The poison pill Macron can insert into the American body politic is to basically say you sell these nuclear submarines to Australia without letting me be part of the deal then I am going to turn around and sell nuclear subs to India and Brazil and what grounds will have to complain about it. I think actually where Biden particular looks bad is he is acting like this is still 1958 or at the very least sometime many decades ago when these "special" deals were more accepted in the non-proliferation community.
I have no problem with India acquiring nuclear subs. Pluses up the Quad. Pluses up the general ability to defend the Indian Ocean and the South China Seas from PRC aggression and occupation.
There are many in the US that share your view(in fact some voices have called for scrapping the NPT altogether in light of the rise of China) but you to acknowledge many will not share your view(I am actually kind of neutral on this issue myself)
Capes blocked reinforcement, supply, and evacuation of Yorktown. Pretty darn important, especially considering the British coastal strategy. Sorry, Old Boy.
A few observations:
(1) Nuclear power does not necessarily = nuclear proliferation. It depends on the specifics of the case, and to claim that assisting Australia in the development of nuclear-propelled submarines amounts to nuclear proliferation is dubious to say the least.
(2) Given a capability to build and operate the latter, the choice between advanced conventionally powered submarines and nuclear-powered submarines is a question of strategy. For countries like Germany and Sweden, whose navies operate in such restricted waters as the Baltic and the North Sea, conventionally powered attack submarines make sense. But given Australia's strategic priorities and geographical situation, nuclear attack submarines constitute the obvious choice. The speed, range, endurance and stealth of SSNs make them far superior to even the most advanced conventional submarine, especially in the Pacific. And if SSNs are going to be procured, doing so in partnership with the US and the UK is the best option. Since 1954, the US Navy has amassed unrivalled experience in the design and operation of nuclear-powered submarines. The UK is not far behind, having commissioned its first SSN in 1963.
(3) It may seem remarkable that eight SSNs for the RAN are envisioned, but in order to keep three or four boats operational at all times, six to eight would be required.
(4) France's angry reaction to the loss of the Australian contract undoubtedly has something to do with the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. The Biden Administration's incompetence in that instance left the French government fit to be tied; now comes the loss of a $60 billion contract. Of course it was the Australian government that pulled the plug, probably deciding that the French proposal for a conventionally powered version of its SSN design was not a good idea.
(5) A strong force of SSNs armed with standoff weapons like the Tomahawk cruise missile is probably the most cost-effective deterrent to Chinese aggression. For instance, in the event of an attempt to invade Taiwan, submarine-launched cruise missile strikes on the ports of embarkation of the invasion force would be an effective early response, buying time for the deployment of reinforcements to the region.
It depends partly if nuclear-propelled submarines are powered by low "commercial" grade enriched uranium like France's are or highly enriched "weapons grade" uranium like the US' and UK's are. In the case of low enriched uranium nuclear propulsion the risks of proliferation are really no greater than that of land-based nuclear power plants. The main difference in the French case is France does NOT allow the same level of international inspection of it's nuclear submarine fleet that it does allow of the large land based EDF nuclear power fleet.
So the key issue is that there has been a longstanding norm to eliminate usage and cross border transfer of HEU(Highly Enriched Uranium) for the better part of 30 years now. Obviously Australia having to obtain HEU to fuel submarines would be a big violation of this norm and something France both as a nuclear power and a commercial competitor is going to have a lot to say about.
Now from the Australian standpoint there are definitely some things in favor of wanting to buy US nuclear powered subs over French nuclear powered subs notwithstanding whether they are power by LEU(Low Enriched Uranium) or HEU. One is obviously the US has simply built a lot more nuclear subs in the past 50 to 60 years. The first French SSBN was only commissioned in 1971 and the first French SSN in 1983. France however, is the only country other than the US with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier FWIW. Second while the French Navy has invested much of it's R&D on making French nuclear subs have more commonality with land based commercial nuclear power the US with Virginia Class while still using HEU has also eliminated the need to refuel it's subs every 4 or 5 years. In fact the Virginia has no refueling capability and once fueled during construction is intended to last for the lifetime of the sub.
Well, norms that don’t distinguish between rogue states like Iran and reliable US allies like Australia actually don’t make much sense, at least to me.
On the whole, for the reasons that you elucidated, I think that it’s wise of Australia to partner with the US on procurement of SSNs. One other consideration that occurs to me is crew training. Together, the USN and the RN can offer a lot in that regard.
Well I can say that Chuck Schumer for example historically was a strong opponent of HEU sales even to close US allies like the Netherlands and Canada(which used it for research reactors to make medical isotopes). Another issue is the US doesn't make HEU anymore and hasn't in over 30 years. What the US does have is a still large Cold War era stockpile of HEU leftover so to speak but I won't last forever and when you start talking the 2040 time period you are getting into the timeframe when the US is going to be rather low on HEU. The symbolism of this is important as all 5 of the "official" nuclear powers have stopped making HEU after 1990.
The reason France made the transition in the early 1990s is they had a far smaller amount of HEU stockpiled after production stopped but France also had a very big commercial LEU sector and a lot of experience using LEU for power generation. Interestingly I suspect if Australia went to France and said were going to buy nuclear subs from the US but we also want to buy some land-based commercial nuclear plants from France for power generation France would jump at that trade. Problem is Australia in making this announcement on nuclear subs seems to be re-iterating even more so that they will never ever ever using nuclear power on land to generate electricity. In fact one reason the Brits may not been in the doghouse as much as the US and Australia in this ess is not because of what France is claiming i.e. that the UK is the lapdog of the US but the UK has been re-iterating for a while that France is it's preferred partner for civil land-based nuclear power generation.
**There are some different things the US could offer France to calm down row but I think the issue is the US quite rightly isn't sure why it is their role to fix this thing and not Australia's instead. It is Australia that refuses nuclear power as a land based electricity generation source as a matter of principle not the US, UK, or France(or a whole bunch of other countries)
I am going to respond back to Eric Hines a bit later when I get some more time but something I want to point out big picture to CG's like Owen Lewis and Robert Zubrin is if you want to make greater use of advanced technologies like using re-useable rockets for point to point transportation on earth and to use advanced nuclear technologies for space exploration then not only you are going to have to maintain existing non proliferation norms you are going to have to strengthen them even further i.e. if Elon Musk wants to fly point to point Starship rocket flights between NYC and Shanghai you are going to to have to find some way to assure to Chinese that a SpaceX Starship is what it is and not an incoming nuclear armed ICBM. While people like Elon Musk have indicated their desire for such technologies we have yet to have a conversation on the rules and legalities of doing so.
“ Crucially, there seems to have been little to no warning given to the French.” (Robin Häggblom)
Maybe it’s just me, but is anyone else surprised that General Milley didn’t give his French colleagues a heads-up?
In many respects, this is a non sequitur. The lack of notice here might be more an Australian move than a US one. Or even a Brit move.
Eric Hines
Couple things, in no particular order, so this will come off (sorry) as rambling.
One is that the French attitude toward the US is...meh. The French, over this, also canceled a dinner commemorating the 240th anniversary of the Battle of the Capes, a French-English fight of some minor use to us in our Revolutionary War.
Keep in mind that France never has been a real friend. Their real involvement in our Revolutionary War came late and only because our win, which seemed likely only late, would harm Great Britain to French advantage. Benefit to us was a tool not an end.
Keep in mind, too, their arrogance toward both us, and toward Great Britain (another signatory to the AUKUS), in their insistence that they should lead the march through Paris late in WWII, instead of either of the two armies that had actually liberated France leading that celebratory stroll.
Too, they bolted from the military arm of NATO and demanded our total departure from France, relenting only slightly and only when LBJ asked if we should withdraw all of our dead in French cemeteries, too.
France still holds a grudge against us over that last because we wouldn't help them maintain their SEA-based colonial empire. (We stepped on the Brits, too, over the Suez Canal a short time later, but we both got over that.)
And they've always been full of anti-American rhetoric of greater or lesser seriousness.
It's certainly true, and stupidly arrogantly so, that the Biden-Harris administration should have coordinated better with France over the sub deal (into which we entered late and after France and Australia were approaching the signing step) and over the AUKUS deal. But that did real damage only slightly, given France, its French Polynesia holdings, has nothing to contribute to the Pacific region, and has had nothing since the Vietnamese ran them out of SEA.
It's also instructive that France's ire is directed against us, publicly at least and not against Australia, who is the one that walked away late in the deal. Was Australia's decision really a surprise? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know what behind the scenes discussions were going on between Australia and France over the sub deal before frustration boiled over and Australia took a decision.
The idea that Australia will build the subs instead of buying off the shelf (hopefully, had that been their decision, anyway, "off-the-shelf" would have been heavily updated) will be hugely expensive is to be expected--as an upfront cost. The Aussies will be gutsing up a new industry. But it's a capability that they need to bring in-house, anyway, and it will pay dividends in the mid- to long-run.
The idea that they're buying/building 8 SSNs and that that will be more than either France or UK have also is not surprising. As noted at the outset of this article, Australia is surrounded by vasty amounts of water. I'll add that it is, for the most part, hostile water, with the PRC occupying international water and islands (and disputed among the South China Sea rim nations) islands and so sitting on Australia's front yard gate. UK and France, on the other hand, operate in much smaller and much safer waters, at least relatively.
France says they were excluded from AUKUS? Based on what facts, other than their smiling faces? There is a world of difference among being excluded, being not invited in, and being not interested when the idea came up quietly. The most likely difference here, though, is the difference between being excluded and not being invited. But what value, really, would France add to the arrangement? French Polynesian naval base(s)? How many non-French NATO troops are stationed in France, even after they rejoined the military arm of NATO? The US, for what we're worth under the Biden-Harris administration, has a large military presence throughout the Pacific, the UK has a large diplomatic and influence presence and a capability to put serious naval units there, and Australia is a willing base of operations that is actively looking to strengthen its own military presence.
There's more, but this is enough rambling.
Eric Hines
The thing is there is a non proliferation issue. While France might be totally cynical in exploiting it even a broken clock is right twice a day. The truth is no country with nuclear submarine technology has ever given it to another nation that is a non nuclear weapons state under the NPT(with the exception of the Russian selling a second hand sub to India which as everyone knows isn't part of the NPT and is a nuclear weapons state anyways).
I myself have a lot of different views on this deal I think some of the Globalists like Monique Camarra and Jakub Jakunda are missing the fact that there is a long strain of deep concern about nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation that cuts across both party and ideological lines in the US. Both Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump for example both made statements about eliminating all nuclear weapons. This is hardly just a left wing thing in the US. The truth of the matter is the risk/rewards ratio for nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation more broadly has always been rather low for the US. I would say that nuclear weapons and to a lesser extent terrorism are two of the very few existential threats to the American homeland surrounded by oceans on both sides. The Manhattan Project was really started in fear of the axis powers getting a nuclear bomb first and using it against the United States and after it turned out they were nowhere close to doing so the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was very controversial in the US among both Republicans and Democrats(Eisenhower famously opposed Truman in public over it)
All of this sentiment continued throughout the Cold War. Ronald Reagan in many ways saw SDI as a prelude to the elimination of all nuclear weapons to the famous dismay of Margaret Thatcher who was far more comfortable with nukes and saw them as far more important to Great Britain's national survival than Reagan did to that of the United States. So is and would be Macron be a bastard, asshole, cynical jerk, whatever swear word you want to use, to try to exploit these deeply held American feelings to get the US and in particular the US Congress and US public to put the kibosh on this deal? Yes, but that doesn't actually matter that much. Successful politicians are in fact bastards, asshole, and cynical jerks.
I would finally conclude that having a big debate about nuclear proliferation just days after the Milley revelations in the US is just about the worse timing possible in the US domestic political space.
"The thing is there is a non proliferation issue. "
No. There's only custom. The NPT has nothing to do with the sort of nuclear tech that might be transferred to the Aussies with this deal.
The whole point of nuclear weapons for us and for the Brits is as deterrent and equalizer. We--so far, the Biden-Harris administration might have different ideas--decline to lose a war and be conquered and enslaved because we lost the conventional war without recourse. Reagan's SDI was further to neutralize the Soviets' nuclear missile threat and just as prominently to engage the Soviets in an economic and technology race they had no hope of winning.
Trump wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons, but not before everyone else did, too, and verifiably so. Verifiability which Iran is demonstrating the stupidity of and Russia only recently demonstrated the stupidity of regarding theater nuclear weapons.
Eric Hines
For the Brits nuclear weapons may very well be an equalizer, Margaret Thatcher very much thought so when Reagan was going to sell her down the river at Reykjavik but the idea of using nuclear weapons beyond that of a deterrent to "equalize" conventional military strength has long been controversial since the days of the Manhattan project in the US(Your ideology Eric is more in common I suspect with Curtis LeMay than Ronald Reagan on this question).
In terms of SDI the primary goal was to make obsolete the ICBM's of the both the US and the USSR. In fact Ronald Reagan very much wanted to share SDI technology with the USSR as a trust building exercise and a first step to move forward with mutual disassembly of the US and USSR nuclear arsenals. The thing is and why Thatcher was so upset was the SDI and Reagan's proposals for disarmament did nothing to offset Soviet conventional military strength which had long exceeded the West's during the Cold War in effect the Soviet position in Europe would have been made stronger by the elimination of nuclear weapons in particular ICBM's and SLBM's with Europe(other than France with its own nuclear technology)having to bear the burden of losing the American nuclear umbrella.
In some ways Thatcher was saved by Gorbachev who for different reasons at Reykjavik did not want to go down the two step track advocated by Reagan for SDI then nuclear disarmament. Reagan also notably stabbed in the back some of his own "Cold Warrior" supporters which I suspect included yourself Eric, along with WigWag and Thomas M Gregg who did not at all in there minds vote for Reagan to bring about nuclear disarmament however, nonetheless Reagan though was operating in a deep tradition of American on nuclear weapons again going all the way back to the Manhattan project.
Tim, I voted for Carter. It was the first presidential election that I was old enough to vote in.
Or, Reagan offered SDI tech to Gorbachev knowing full well the offer would be rejected, which would give Reagan a further leg up in the arms race he'd started explicitly to defeat the Soviets. The INF treaty further played into his hands (and Thatcher's, although she either didn't know of/understand the bluff or didn't believe it was a bluff) since SDI at the time was helpless against theater-only missiles.
The Soviets also had OPLANs for fighting and winning a nuclear war, which made neutralizing their missiles without neutralizing ours important.
The Soviets, after all, would have needed a whole lot of other, more baseline, tech before they could understand, much less use, SDI tech.
Or he was serious and screwing this one up and saved, as you suggest, by Gorbachev's refusal.
Eric Hines
The NPT does and doesn't. As a strict matter the NPT doesn't in anyway ban this sort of nuclear technology or the transfer of it however, military uses of nuclear power are exempt from IAEA "safeguard" protocols that are in put in place to prevent the diversion of nuclear technology from civil and peaceful purposes for weapons. The IAEA can for example inspect civil nuclear power plants used for research and power generation even in the NWS states however it cannot inspect nuclear powered submarines or naval surface vessels. Again a highly technical issue.
One possibility is Australia with the help of others like the US could create a completely new propulsion technology that they would allow to be within the boundaries of IAEA safeguards akin to what the US did back in the day with the NS Savannah but this would have to be something completely new that did not include any of the elements of current UK, US, or French submarine propulsion technology that those countries have historically NOT wanted to be under IAEA inspection.
We transferred this technology to the UK, so it isn't without precedent.
But the UK IS an NWS state under the NPT, Australia isn't. The UK also already had nuclear weapons in 1958 i.e. the "V-Bomber" based on it's own technology. It is in the present after the UK retired the V-Bomber that the UK is now completely dependent on the US for nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion for there Submarines(the later started under the first Polaris agreement). Even so 1958 was a long time ago and a lot of things have changed. I would say the US is probably more afraid of proliferation now than back then(that was the height of the "missile gap").
In fact this I suspect might require changes to the McMahon Act which will be political poison depending on how loudly Macron complains. The McMahon Act predates the NPT but basically the 1958 amendments(prior to which the was absolutely no atomic info sharing going back to 1946) say the US can only transfer nuclear technology to allied countries that have already obtained such technology indigenously. France interestingly falls under the McMahon Act too and the US does share research information with France under its provisions too but it is much more of a "hard science" nature as France unlike the UK builds everything in house for the force de frappe.
But the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists shares your concerns. https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-nuclear-submarine-announcement-a-terrible-decision-for-the-nonproliferation-regime/
The poison pill Macron can insert into the American body politic is to basically say you sell these nuclear submarines to Australia without letting me be part of the deal then I am going to turn around and sell nuclear subs to India and Brazil and what grounds will have to complain about it. I think actually where Biden particular looks bad is he is acting like this is still 1958 or at the very least sometime many decades ago when these "special" deals were more accepted in the non-proliferation community.
I have no problem with India acquiring nuclear subs. Pluses up the Quad. Pluses up the general ability to defend the Indian Ocean and the South China Seas from PRC aggression and occupation.
Be interesting to see Brazil afford nuclear subs.
Eric Hines
There are many in the US that share your view(in fact some voices have called for scrapping the NPT altogether in light of the rise of China) but you to acknowledge many will not share your view(I am actually kind of neutral on this issue myself)
Just one point of correction. The Battle of the Capes gave us victory at Yorktown. So it was pretty important.
Capes gave the French victory and made easier their blockade of Yorktown. Not that important.
Eric Hines
Capes blocked reinforcement, supply, and evacuation of Yorktown. Pretty darn important, especially considering the British coastal strategy. Sorry, Old Boy.