How is this not front age news?

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm not sure what your point is here in relation to the OP article.

Are you simply wanting to clarify the locus of the article for me and draw my attention to the fact that the subs in question here are "only" nuclear powered and not diesel powered? Or what?

Click to expand...

Wondering why you implied this deal (Aus. nuke power subs instead of diesel-elec subs) represents a problem.

Googling Youtube (haven't read the thread yet) but I where NBC covers this. I guess I can kind of sympathize more with Biden etc. Basically this kind of under cutting France on selling nuke submarines to Australia. Where I'm sympathetic is that Australia for its own defense needs as far as pushing back on Chinese hegemony really needed nuke submarines sooner rather than later, and also cheaper if possible. So whatever deal they had with France was great for French defense contractors but not so much for everybody else. From what little I know on things, its sounds like we under cut France etc. to sell them some of our older stuff, basically the US and UK. So it's kind of crappy, sneaky etc. but on the record France had not been a full fledged member of NATO for a long time. They got this kind of semi-member thing going, because they wanted to get nukes and do their own thing (tried to stay a colonial power post world war II) and a full membership would have cramped their style. So anyway I think this is better for the alliance etc. in spite of all the sneakiness and bad feelings generated.

durangodawood said:

Wondering why you implied this deal (Aus. nuke power subs instead of diesel-elec subs) represents a problem.

Click to expand...

Where did I implied that? You're the one who brought up the idea of diesel subs in contra-distinction from nuke subs. I didn't.

My actual implied point is that the world worries too much about its 'defenses' and is willing (in Pragmatic fashion) to trudge ahead for the sake of the golden calf of Economic and Political power and prosperity regardless of the overall risks ...

... but I get it. In a Christ-less world, where Jesus isn't "KING," ya gotta do what ya gotta DO!!

Now that this has been confirmed as front page news, in the New York Times no less, will there be any alteration to the thread title?

Basically we took away a massive deal France had with Australia, to sell australia the tech to build nuclear powered subs.

France has become increasingly frustrated with the UK, US, and Australia among others, seeming to overlook or undermine them in dealings between allies.

hislegacy said:

BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking)

France has recalled its Ambassador from the US.

has anyone heard anything on the news about this?

Click to expand...

edit consolidated in earlier post

Pavel Mosko said:

I gotta admit I was really hoping this was over how shabbily we treat our allies with the Afghanistan pullout than over nuke submarine contracts, but maybe the contracts were a final straw...

Click to expand...

This is big kids table stuff. Sad to say, but you aren't going to find anyone in the G7 who care about afghanistan.

2PhiloVoid said:

Where did I implied that? You're the one who brought up the idea of diesel subs in contra-distinction from nuke subs. I didn't.

My actual implied point is that the world worries too much about its 'defenses' and is willing (in Pragmatic fashion) to trudge ahead for the sake of the golden calf of Economic and Political power and prosperity regardless of the overall risks ...

... but I get it. In a Christ-less world, where Jesus isn't "KING," ya gotta do what ya gotta DO!!

Click to expand...

In a topic where diesel subs vs nuke subs was salient, I reasonably assumed your problem with "nuke subs", as you described it, was about them being nuke.

But I see where youre going with this. And I wish the world wasnt such that we invest precious effort into war. But where was it ever not?

durangodawood said:

In a topic where diesel subs vs nuke subs was salient, I reasonably assumed your problem with "nuke subs", as you described it, was about them being nuke.

But I see where youre going with this. And I wish the world wasnt such that we invest precious effort into war. But where was it ever not?

Click to expand...

True.

Desk trauma said:

Now that this has been confirmed as front page news, in the New York Times no less, will there be any alteration to the thread title?

Click to expand...

You must be new here.

hislegacy said:

BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking)

France has recalled its Ambassador from the US.

has anyone heard anything on the news about this?

Click to expand...

It was. Still is on CNN. NYTimes includes as part of a front page story on French reaction. Those are the main sources I read regularly.

iluvatar5150 said:

You must be new here.

Click to expand...

Just suffering from a moment of Pollyannaism.

Pavel Mosko said:

Googling Youtube (haven't read the thread yet) but I where NBC covers this. I guess I can kind of sympathize more with Biden etc. Basically this kind of under cutting France on selling nuke submarines to Australia. Where I'm sympathetic is that Australia for its own defense needs as far as pushing back on Chinese hegemony really needed nuke submarines sooner rather than later, and also cheaper if possible. So whatever deal they had with France was great for French defense contractors but not so much for everybody else. From what little I know on things, its sounds like we under cut France etc. to sell them some of our older stuff, basically the US and UK. So it's kind of crappy, sneaky etc. but on the record France had not been a full fledged member of NATO for a long time. They got this kind of semi-member thing going, because they wanted to get nukes and do their own thing (tried to stay a colonial power post world war II) and a full membership would have cramped their style. So anyway I think this is better for the alliance etc. in spite of all the sneakiness and bad feelings generated.

Click to expand...

It is also worth noting that the French sub program was behind schedule and way over budget, leading to much of the reason for Australia being interested in making the switch to the US subs. The cost was supposed to be about $36 billion, the project ended up being contracted for $50 billion, overruns had already taken the cost to $66 billion, and further overruns were projected to take the project to $90 billion. France had to know Australia was unhappy with the deal and apparently Australia had been signalling they were looking for a new deal. In April, the Australian government had refused to sign the contract for the next stage of the project; there is no way the French should not have understood their contract was about to be cancelled.

Further, 90% of the jobs were supposed to be Australian, which was quickly revised down to 60%, and more recently the French contractor pushing back against that -- stating that Australians weren't capable of building the subs. There allegedly also were cultural issues, such as the French expecting the Australian factory to shut down for August and the workers having the month off, as French factories do.

hislegacy said:

BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking)

France has recalled its Ambassador from the US.

has anyone heard anything on the news about this?

Click to expand...

the US likes to make their own rules because they brought the ball to play with. And if they didn't bring the ball they start a new game with their own ball.

Vylo said:

Basically we took away a massive deal France had with Australia, to sell australia the tech to build nuclear powered subs.

France has become increasingly frustrated with the UK, US, and Australia among others, seeming to overlook or undermine them in dealings between allies.

Click to expand...

It's worse than that. Basically the three countries didn't bother informing France of what was going on, and made this new arrangement behind their backs. Apparently Paris only found out an hour before it was publicly declared. It was a stupid, incredibly arrogant way to treat a major ally, and its not at all surprising that France are so furious.

Our prime minister is worse than useless. This is the dumbest thing he has done and that is saying something. Australia has a broad continental shelf and relatively shallow coastal waters which are ill served by larger subs..though of course this current deal doesn't actually have any hard deliverables on any subs, and it does look like it will take 20 years

Kentonio said:

It's worse than that. Basically the three countries didn't bother informing France of what was going on, and made this new arrangement behind their backs. Apparently Paris only found out an hour before it was publicly declared. It was a stupid, incredibly arrogant way to treat a major ally, and its not at all surprising that France are so furious.

Click to expand...

It is a pretty bad way to treat our oldest, staunchest, ally.

About that retraction of the title due to it being front page news and all…

Space Monkey said:

"In an editorial, Le Monde, the leading French daily, said: “For any who still doubted it, the Biden administration is no different from the Trump administration on this point: The United States comes first, whether it’s in the strategic, economic, financial or health fields. ‘America First’ is the guiding line of the foreign policy of the White House.”

Well yes, America will always be first for Americans.

Click to expand...

Putting your country first should also include proper treatment of your allies, so that you may have still allies in the future.

Nithavela said:

Putting your country first should also include proper treatment of your allies, so that you may have still allies in the future.

Click to expand...

Something, something, WWII, something, surrender, freedom fries!