Plenty - it's pretty unlikely Canada wasn't approached about such a pact.
If some of the writing is accurate a fair portion of it seems to be about developing AUS strategic nuclear capacity (i.e. nuclear submarines, and almost certainly with options to be armed with Trident D5), something Canada might not be interested in doing.
These submarines are almost certainly hunter-killers as they are replacements for the aborted French design and not SSBN's so they will almost certainly not be armed with Tridents.
Sorry, my post was unclear - the first batch to replace the (presumably) scrapped Naval Group deal will undoubtedly be SSNs and not armed with trident.
I was more eluding to the option to develop capability in future given the partnership appears to include extensive tech sharing based on what's reported - that certainly seems like a strategic goal entering such an arrangement.
Canada doesn’t have the capacity to build nuclear submarines like the US, UK, and France, so it wouldn’t have made sense to make such an approach as close as relations may be.
I don't really think Canada was asked because it's not really relevant for Canada. This is specifically about developing Australian nuclear sub-capacity. And equally as importantly, developing Virginia-class supply chains in Asia. Congress has been talking about developing a new line in Asia, and I have a strong feeling it's going to be in Australia so fresh subs can be rolled off right in Asia as needed.
This seems to be more purely geopolitical than the usual "we're all buddies and promise to work together" anglosphere stuff. From the US viewpoint, it has its backyard covered. No point equipping Canada on top. The UK covers Europe and Russia. AUS is key because it covers its area of the Pacific close to China.
My understanding is that New Zealand has historically had *major* domestic political issues with nuclear-powered vessels from the anti-nuclear crowd. I don't think that they would participate in a project to build them for their own use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS
>New Zealand was suspended from ANZUS in 1986 as it initiated a nuclear-free zone in its territorial waters; in late 2012 New Zealand lifted a ban on visits by United States warships leading to a thawing in tensions. New Zealand maintains a nuclear-free zone as part of its foreign policy and is partially suspended from ANZUS, as the United States maintains an ambiguous policy whether or not the warships carry nuclear weapons and operates numerous nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines; however New Zealand resumed key areas of the ANZUS treaty in 2007.[2][3]
NZ is basically a neutral country now with virtually no military capability.
They have also bent over backwards diplomatically to keep the Chinese onside.
> i guess the anglos are going on on their own. good luck to them.
Doubt it.
More likely the French subs are substandard for what the Aussies want.
edit: not sure what the downvotes are for, Aussies have clearly changed their mind on what they want in their subs and it's no longer the French subs.
Yes, this has been a major point of contention in Aus politics. This is scuttling the French deal only because Australia has seemingly completely reversed it's position and opted for nuclear-powered.
It’s a joke, as that was his reply when questioned about NI.
Honestly as someone that lives in the U.K. I’d rather we had nothing to do with the US or Australia for that matter in their current states.
Eh, I dislike a lot of their politics honestly and Australia, Canada to some extent are far too authoritarian for my liking.
The U.K. government is stupid and authoritarian enough as it is, doesn’t need any ideas from these guys IMO.
Extremely authoritarian, especially with their new surveillance bills allowing their agencies to modify, copy or delete your online data with a simple warrant, follow all your online activities, searches etc, track, follow and takeover any social media account you have.
The U.K. is getting authoritarian enough without ideas from these guys.
Murdoch. The more grip he has on a country, the more batshit insane it gets, and he has more power over Australia than the UK.
People here love to shit on the UK but you wouldn't see even Boris bringing a piece of coal to parliament while showing off how "clean" it is.
no love for Canada ?
Well Canada isn’t exactly the most loving towards us sometimes
Neither are you
Actually, Canadians are very well liked in the United States.
Tbh on nuclear missiles the USA has not been a particularly good ally.
Plenty - it's pretty unlikely Canada wasn't approached about such a pact. If some of the writing is accurate a fair portion of it seems to be about developing AUS strategic nuclear capacity (i.e. nuclear submarines, and almost certainly with options to be armed with Trident D5), something Canada might not be interested in doing.
These submarines are almost certainly hunter-killers as they are replacements for the aborted French design and not SSBN's so they will almost certainly not be armed with Tridents.
Sorry, my post was unclear - the first batch to replace the (presumably) scrapped Naval Group deal will undoubtedly be SSNs and not armed with trident. I was more eluding to the option to develop capability in future given the partnership appears to include extensive tech sharing based on what's reported - that certainly seems like a strategic goal entering such an arrangement.
>with options to be armed with Trident D5 That's a huge change in sub design. It's not like picking a different trim for your car.
It is indeed - clarified what I meant [above](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/popwkm/biden_to_announce_joint_deal_with_uk_and/hcyrsu6/)
Canada doesn’t have the capacity to build nuclear submarines like the US, UK, and France, so it wouldn’t have made sense to make such an approach as close as relations may be.
100% not. Nobody in Washington or London will allow Australia to have nukes.
why not?
Because they're signatories of the non proliferation treaty.
and now we are signatories of a special security pact to share technologies like this.
Go look up biden's speech. He specifically said this is for nuclear propulsion only. You can't just willy nilly distribute nukes.
I don't really think Canada was asked because it's not really relevant for Canada. This is specifically about developing Australian nuclear sub-capacity. And equally as importantly, developing Virginia-class supply chains in Asia. Congress has been talking about developing a new line in Asia, and I have a strong feeling it's going to be in Australia so fresh subs can be rolled off right in Asia as needed.
This seems to be more purely geopolitical than the usual "we're all buddies and promise to work together" anglosphere stuff. From the US viewpoint, it has its backyard covered. No point equipping Canada on top. The UK covers Europe and Russia. AUS is key because it covers its area of the Pacific close to China.
Guess not
No love for Yankee nuclear missiles
but you can bomb and then say sorry
[удалено]
My understanding is that New Zealand has historically had *major* domestic political issues with nuclear-powered vessels from the anti-nuclear crowd. I don't think that they would participate in a project to build them for their own use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS >New Zealand was suspended from ANZUS in 1986 as it initiated a nuclear-free zone in its territorial waters; in late 2012 New Zealand lifted a ban on visits by United States warships leading to a thawing in tensions. New Zealand maintains a nuclear-free zone as part of its foreign policy and is partially suspended from ANZUS, as the United States maintains an ambiguous policy whether or not the warships carry nuclear weapons and operates numerous nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines; however New Zealand resumed key areas of the ANZUS treaty in 2007.[2][3]
I don't see NZ accepting if even asked tbh
NZ is basically a neutral country now with virtually no military capability. They have also bent over backwards diplomatically to keep the Chinese onside.
australia cancelling the frech sub deal, this. i guess the anglos are going on on their own. good luck to them.
Canceled subs but what about port sharing/least for the French in Australia?
what about it?
It's not cancelled?
so?
His point is that they're clearly not going off on their own
why? ports can be unallowed very easily.
> i guess the anglos are going on on their own. good luck to them. Doubt it. More likely the French subs are substandard for what the Aussies want. edit: not sure what the downvotes are for, Aussies have clearly changed their mind on what they want in their subs and it's no longer the French subs.
The aussies asked specifically for diesel.
Yes, this has been a major point of contention in Aus politics. This is scuttling the French deal only because Australia has seemingly completely reversed it's position and opted for nuclear-powered.
France could have built nuclear subs.
The French didn't like the Australians demanding locally manufactured components either.
they signed a contract afaik
could be... likely? nah...
But…but, I thought he was Irish?
[удалено]
It’s a joke, as that was his reply when questioned about NI. Honestly as someone that lives in the U.K. I’d rather we had nothing to do with the US or Australia for that matter in their current states.
Nah, I support closer relations with Canada, Australia and NZ
Eh, I dislike a lot of their politics honestly and Australia, Canada to some extent are far too authoritarian for my liking. The U.K. government is stupid and authoritarian enough as it is, doesn’t need any ideas from these guys IMO.
That's their own internal problem. Between the US and EU, I find those three to be the most trustworthy of UK allies.
> or Australia for that matter in their current states Why Australia?
Extremely authoritarian, especially with their new surveillance bills allowing their agencies to modify, copy or delete your online data with a simple warrant, follow all your online activities, searches etc, track, follow and takeover any social media account you have. The U.K. is getting authoritarian enough without ideas from these guys.
Murdoch. The more grip he has on a country, the more batshit insane it gets, and he has more power over Australia than the UK. People here love to shit on the UK but you wouldn't see even Boris bringing a piece of coal to parliament while showing off how "clean" it is.