Timeline for Why are other countries reacting negatively to Australia's decision to deploy nuclear submarines?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 25, 2021 at 12:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/1441734253738283016 | ||
| Sep 23, 2021 at 7:36 | comment | added | caveman |
Australian documents showed French submarine project was at risk for years. France should not have been surprised that Australia cancelled a submarine contract, as major concerns about delays, cost overruns and suitability had been aired officially and publicly for years, Australian politicians said.
|
|
| Sep 22, 2021 at 20:13 | answer | added | tj1000 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 22, 2021 at 15:00 | comment | added | Burgi | How would NZ know if nuclear powered subs are operating in it's terrorital waters? These machines are designned to be sneaky... | |
| Sep 22, 2021 at 10:01 | comment | added | Jan | @PaŭloEbermann The French ones would have been diesel-powered, according to a news report yesterday or the day before. | |
| Sep 22, 2021 at 4:49 | comment | added | mcalex | >>Adopting nuclear submarines then sounds like adopting cars instead of horse-drawn carriages - it's just the sensible thing to do - while I don't disagree in principle, it does need to be pointed out that 'the sensible thing to do doesn't come without negative aspects. With horses vs cars, you get speed, distance, reliability, availability - but there is a pollution cost. Given it reduces life expectancy by 1.2 years in Indonesia (pop. 270M) mainly due to cars - that's 324 million years sensibly lost. | |
| Sep 22, 2021 at 2:10 | comment | added | user16741 | @Isaac what, from that page, gives you the impression that GNS Science are operating an actual nuclear reactor rather than just operating with isotopes? | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 22:38 | comment | added | Paŭlo Ebermann | Just adding: A critique I hear in Europe is that Australia canceled a contract for getting submarines from France (I don't remember whether those would be nuclearly powered or not). | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 21:38 | comment | added | user16741 | @JonathanReezsure, if the US wanted to outright come across as a tyrant nation with no regard for other nations laws, they could indeed do that. | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 21:35 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @Moo though of course it should be noted that NZ would be completely powerless to stop the US military if they ignored the law and did it anyway. Those who don't have nukes are at the mercy of goodwill (and international power balance) of those who do have them. | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 12:18 | history | edited | Rick Smith |
edited tags; edited tags
|
|
| Sep 21, 2021 at 4:56 | comment | added | Isaac | note: New Zealand actually HAS a nuclear reactor (for research purposes) gns.cri.nz/Home/Our-Science/Nuclear-and-Isotope-Science | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 1:03 | vote | accept | Allure | ||
| Sep 20, 2021 at 20:15 | answer | added | user38958 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 19:18 | answer | added | Eugene | timeline score: 12 | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 16:26 | answer | added | Pete W | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 15:49 | comment | added | llama | New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation specifically forbids the use of nuclear power for military purposes (be it weaponry or propulsion) within New Zealand's territory. It's not a ban on the understanding or use of nuclear physics | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 12:56 | history | edited | Allure | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add North Korea, also I think it's worth keeping the sentence on NZ's PET scans because a couple of answers have already touched on that point
|
| Sep 20, 2021 at 12:22 | history | edited | Ekadh Singh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 23 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2021 at 12:00 | history | edited | Ekadh Singh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 254 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2021 at 11:06 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 20, 2021 at 9:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 20, 2021 at 12:00 | |||||
| Sep 20, 2021 at 7:59 | answer | added | quarague | timeline score: 9 | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 7:58 | answer | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | timeline score: 19 | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 4:27 | comment | added | user16741 | @jamesqf thats six of one, half a dozen of another really. Its not as if China is completely on its own in terms of being provocative in the region... | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 3:56 | comment | added | jamesqf | @r13: Does China need an excuse? From what I've read, it seems that Australia's potential nuclear subs, and other security arrangements, are responses to Chinese provocations. | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 2:33 | comment | added | user16741 | @Allure NZ is just reiterating its long-standing stance regarding nuclear powered vessels - Australia cannot send its nuclear-power submarines through NZ waters, which means that Australia has to go around those waters. NZ isn't jealous, it specifically does not want the capability and it does not want those with the capability to send nuclear powered or armed vessels into its waters. This has caused significant issues for NZ in the past, with the US throwing its toys out of the pram and effectively putting sanctions on NZ in the 1980s - and yet the ban survives to this day. | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 1:57 | comment | added | Joe W | Well in terms of pure performance conventional ships outperform nuclear ones for various reasons. The benefit of nuclear power is being able to stay out to sea for longer without having to refuel and being able to stay underwater longer at greater depths due to not having to depend on a battery. | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 1:47 | comment | added | Allure | @JJJ the first question is rhetorical - if there's no reason (other than cost/technology) not to deploy nuclear submarines, then there is no reason for Malaysia & New Zealand to be reacting negatively, unless they are jealous for not having the money/technology to deploy them. | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 1:33 | answer | added | user16741 | timeline score: 51 | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 1:32 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @Allure that first question in your comment is a different one from the one you asked though. The answer is simple, I think, you need the technology (to build, to maintain, etc.) and it's expensive. I'm not sure if that can be made into an answer to your question though, that's more about geopolitics (and different countries may have different motivations). | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 1:21 | comment | added | Allure | @JoeW that's exactly what I'm asking - why would anyone not get nuclear powered submarines if they have better performance? But if that's the case, why would anyone react negatively to Australia acquiring them? | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 1:17 | comment | added | r13 | @Joe W Not necessarily, unless it is equipped with nuclear war heads. But it does heighten the tension in the South China Sea and provides excuses for China to beef up its forces in that region, which many countries do not want to see. | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 1:12 | comment | added | Joe W | It should be noted that nuclear powered subs != nuclear weapons. They are just used for better performance at sea. Longer times underway and underwater without refueling. | |
| Sep 20, 2021 at 0:45 | history | asked | Allure | CC BY-SA 4.0 |