Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Procurement Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Fewer, The Better And Cheaper
SYSOP    10/17/2021 5:30:48 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Hari Sud       10/17/2021 6:44:07 AM
There is only one way to look at the AUKUS deal that US and UK conspired to steal the submarine contract for supply of submarines away from France by offering nuclear powered partly American and partly British design. If France is hoping mad, then nobody can blame them. It is $90 billion lost business for France in next 15 years. Not only that, the French pride has been hurt. Nobody believes that with the addition of these nuclear submarines, Australia will be so strong that they would pose a challenge to Chinese perfidy in China sea. It is unlikely to happen. On the other hand it is a nuclear proliferation by both US and UK. So far there has been pro US publicity of this deal but soon opposition to this nuclear technology proliferation will take place all over the world. US/UK will be called as nuclear proliferator.
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Webb       10/17/2021 2:41:36 PM
An Indian complaining about nuclear proliferation? That's rich. The French have no one to blame but themselves, did you even read the article? Regardless, the free world better toughen up, as there is a war coming, and the Chinese couldn't care less about feelings.
 
Quote    Reply

grumblesa10       10/18/2021 11:09:33 AM
The French defaulted on the contract with repeated delays, and a lack of transparency into exactly what was causing the delays, and the fix action(s) to remedy them. Australia did nothing but exercise its RIGHTS under the agreement BOTH signed. The RAAN doesn't expect to face down the PLAN alone-that's a frankly ridiculous assertion. What it does do is send a message to the PRC, that after years of "Australia doesn't need to decide [about the SCS and economic/political fallout]" it's messaging to the PRC they've had enough. Militarily, it complicates the PLAN's ASW problem, which has been the least effective of its capabilities.
 
Quote    Reply

grumblesa10       10/18/2021 11:22:43 AM
The French defaulted on the contract with repeated delays, and a lack of transparency into exactly what was causing the delays, and the fix action(s) to remedy them. Australia did nothing but exercise its RIGHTS under the agreement BOTH signed. The RAAN doesn't expect to face down the PLAN alone-that's a frankly ridiculous assertion. What it does do is send a message to the PRC, that after years of "Australia doesn't need to decide [about the SCS and economic/political fallout]" it's messaging to the PRC they've had enough. Militarily, it complicates the PLAN's ASW problem, which has been the least effective of its capabilities.
 
Quote    Reply

Toryu88       10/20/2021 8:50:57 AM
The Treaty on Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) says it all in the name. It is about the non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons not peaceful use of nuclear power. In this case it is a power plant not nuclear weaponry. So while it might be in a warship, it is not the tech to enrich nuclear fuel into weapons grade radioactive materials. Niced try though.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics