I wasn’t convinced by the argument that the US needs multi-lateralism, especially if it can still rely on allies like the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Poland etc. The US has repeatedly shown its ability to force other states to comply with its wishes in a variety of ways. This is even the case with war—for example the Iraq war, which was basically entirely the US, with some small help from close allies like the UK and Poland. Similarly I think speculation that this might cause the end of the dollar as a reserve currency seems very, well, speculative.
The exclusion of France is something of an issue though I think. They are in many ways a natural military ally for the UK, as well a procurement partner, which is important because the UK is so inefficient at procurement (see e.g. the Ajax debacle, or our very inefficient shipyard). Excluding them here also makes the Atlanticist parts of the French establishment look stupid, and strengthens the hand of the NATO-skeptics.
But this should be matched against the inclusion of Australia. China is undertaking a variety of efforts to influence the Antipodean nations, including significantly compromising New Zealand. This deal could help to significantly strengthen their ties to the west.
It is perhaps worth noting that nuclear submarines are not strictly better than diesel submarines. Diesels are cheaper, so you can have more of them, and they can be quieter than nukes, though their operational range is obviously much shorter.
Thanks, I think I agree with most of this. I wonder also if the US and others were a bit surprised at how strongly France reacted. As with the Afghanistan withdrawal, I wonder if Biden underestimated the strength of European partners’ feelings. I agree it’s hard to assess how much these things ultimately matter though.
It does seem that, for Australia’s purposes, the nuclear propulsion option is superior to diesel, however I’m sure a key part of opting for nuclear was getting to be in a pact with the US.
I wasn’t convinced by the argument that the US needs multi-lateralism, especially if it can still rely on allies like the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Poland etc. The US has repeatedly shown its ability to force other states to comply with its wishes in a variety of ways. This is even the case with war—for example the Iraq war, which was basically entirely the US, with some small help from close allies like the UK and Poland. Similarly I think speculation that this might cause the end of the dollar as a reserve currency seems very, well, speculative.
The exclusion of France is something of an issue though I think. They are in many ways a natural military ally for the UK, as well a procurement partner, which is important because the UK is so inefficient at procurement (see e.g. the Ajax debacle, or our very inefficient shipyard). Excluding them here also makes the Atlanticist parts of the French establishment look stupid, and strengthens the hand of the NATO-skeptics.
But this should be matched against the inclusion of Australia. China is undertaking a variety of efforts to influence the Antipodean nations, including significantly compromising New Zealand. This deal could help to significantly strengthen their ties to the west.
It is perhaps worth noting that nuclear submarines are not strictly better than diesel submarines. Diesels are cheaper, so you can have more of them, and they can be quieter than nukes, though their operational range is obviously much shorter.
Thanks, I think I agree with most of this. I wonder also if the US and others were a bit surprised at how strongly France reacted. As with the Afghanistan withdrawal, I wonder if Biden underestimated the strength of European partners’ feelings. I agree it’s hard to assess how much these things ultimately matter though.
It does seem that, for Australia’s purposes, the nuclear propulsion option is superior to diesel, however I’m sure a key part of opting for nuclear was getting to be in a pact with the US.