France left out in the cold, again...Down periscopes!

[Hotrodder]

It is unsurprising that Australia has decided to go for nuclear powered rather than conventional submarines but an obvious blow to France. In the delay since the agreement with France, much has changed and Australia has had time to reflect on its needs and the superior technology that the US and UK can provide.

I know nothing about the superior technology of the US but it is clear that their foreign policy is largely dictated by their arms industry, among others. They already have military stationed in Australia. Does the UK? It is in the American interest to hype up the Chinese threat to keep the defense spending flowing.

[Blaze]

[mention]Hotrodder[/mention] The US has several military bases around the South China Sea which carries a huge amount of international trade. The Chinese want to control this area and are disputing the rights to a couple of groups of strategically placed islands, the Spratleys and Paracels. An ongoing situation ...
The US has always protected its interests - and its arms industry - and doesn't like sharing. The French have good nuclear technology but who knows what goes on in the corridors of power ?

[mysty]

N, is there any difference now between the UK and North Korea.
Both countries control the media, brain wash the public and you cannot believe a word they say.
Boris said yesterday Britain produces the best food in the world.

Mysty, thought you might like this:
batshit.jpg

But not sure it's just a few now, if there was an election tomorrow Labour would be wiped out.

[niemeyjt]

I found this article initially to examine the NPT issues, but it contains another interesting paragraph:

Worse still, both America and Britain use highly enriched uranium (HEU), essentially weapons-grade, in their subs. It is possible to operate a sub with low-enriched uranium (LEU)—both France and China do so—but it has drawbacks, such as larger reactors and more frequent refueling.

If as stated the Australians cancelled the French diesel submarine order for lack of range and frequent refuelling, and if French LEU nuclear subs also need more refuelling, then maybe there are valid operational reasons for the decision.

source: https://www.economist.com/international ... liferation

[Char]

N, is there any difference now between the UK and North Korea.
Both countries control the media, brain wash the public and you cannot believe a word they say.
Boris said yesterday Britain produces the best food in the world.

I really don't want to 'rain on anyone's parade' but as some of our members live in the UK and some who don't live there still may have some affection for the country, can I ask that people think before making silly statements, as you may well offend some people and put others off joining.

I'm sure it was just a tongue in cheek comment but life in North Korea is probably worse than any of us know.

Many thanks

[Hotrodder]

You're probably right. They don't have Indian takeaways there.

[Char]

They don't have much of anything by all accounts HR, and they face public execution if they criticise their leader.

Any how, back on topic.

The fact that they haven’t withdrawn anyone from London shows how Global Britain is nothing more than a pawn in that game.

When the French Foreign Minister was asked why they hadn't recalled their Ambassador from London he apparently said;

"We have recalled our ambassadors to (Canberra and Washington) to re-evaluate the situation. With Britain, there is no need. We know their constant opportunism. So there is no need to bring our ambassador back to explain,".

Not a lot of respect for the UK then.

[Doug]

They don't have much of anything by all accounts HR, and they face public execution if they criticise their leader.

Any how, back on topic.

The fact that they haven’t withdrawn anyone from London shows how Global Britain is nothing more than a pawn in that game.

When the French Foreign Minister was asked why they hadn't recalled their Ambassador from London he apparently said;

"We have recalled our ambassadors to (Canberra and Washington) to re-evaluate the situation. With Britain, there is no need. We know their constant opportunism. So there is no need to bring our ambassador back to explain,".

Not a lot of respect for the UK then.

Isn't surprising is it.