Sounds like it's time for France, Germany, Norway, South Korea, UK, Australia, Canada, and anyone else who wants in to join forces and build our own modern nuclear sub class. We are not helpless subsistence farmers, we are some of the largest economies in the world, I will not be gaslit into believing we are not capable of matching or exceeding, if not US technology itself, then at least the level of technology that the US would be willing to sell to us. Where there is a collective will, there is a way. We must put as much collective effort into this as we put into the industrial revolution itself, or WW2's economic transformations. If we did it in a matter of years under fire from Germany's bombs and guns and U-boats we can do it under fire from Trump's tariffs. Let's get to work.
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
66 points (100.0% liked)
News
30170 readers
3809 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, yes, no problem ve vill bild ze vepons, yes yes
/s nah seriously, we got this. just need to actually get to work on it, and forcefully reject the foreign opinion influence working against this scenario (sowing discord, doubt and fear)
The cost to design one is insanely expensive, the advantage of the U.S. designs is they have a very long operating history with a bunch of subs so all those lessons learned from 70 years of operation are factored into the designs and the U.S. buys a bunch at once which lowers the cost per unit and makes keeping maintenance facilities available for the subs much cheaper as well.
The U.S. has 66 active nuclear subs, the UK has 10 and France 9 so again while it’s possible to do it would be very expensive
All well and good, but submarine reactors are extremely tricksy, and having the experience in designing and building them is a massive advantage. It’s a whole other order than any WW2 technology. See the issues France has had.
It sounds like you're talking about the experience that France has in designing and building them being a massive advantage, which I agree with, which is why they're going to be an important part of the group. The hardest things to do are the things that are the most worth doing. Laziness and efficiency are the same thing, and our relentless pursuit of efficiency in every possible thing has made us unfathomably lazy. It's time to invest in some thoughtful inefficiency. The fact that these things are difficult is how you learn important albeit maybe expensive lessons and become an expert and a leader. To paraphrase JFK, we have to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Only a fool would think learning is a waste of time.
At least the fully employed us scientists, full of national pride, won’t jump ship and help them, out of fear of their totally not crumbling state coming after then.
If the US makes it out of this regime in one piece i'm gonna be so glad to see America's ego knocked down. Of course, that'd be the best case scenario. Only time will tell if America even survives in its current form within the next decade.
Narrator: "They will not".
Haven't heard a lot of USA USA USA chants recently, been really nice.
The review to determine whether the US should scrap the project is being led by Elbridge Colby, a top defence department official who previously expressed scepticism about Aukus, according to six people familiar with the matter.
Eh. Looking back, it sounds like his take is fairly nuanced. From what he's said in the past, it sounds like he's said that he doesn't think that entering the arrangement was actually worthwhile for the US, but that he's also hesitant to withdraw from an agreement once entered into.
It sounds like his argument is that the main risk of a military conflict with China over Taiwan, where these would play a role, is relatively near-term. Australia hasn't stated that it would defend Taiwan, and AUKUS won't result in an aggregate increase in submarines across the US and Australia for some time, which means that it would reduce the number of submarines available to fight China.
Assuming that all that is accurate, that seems to be a fair take to me. My guess is that what he's actually after, given his phrasing, is not trying to trying to end AUKUS, but to get Australia to also commit to defending Taiwan as a condition for it.
Speaking in London on Monday, Mr Colby said that US shipbuilding could not keep pace with the target of delivering Australia subs by 2032 and questioned why the US was giving away its most lethal assets to a country that was not even guaranteeing it would use them in the event of a conflict over Taiwan.
“If I were king for a day on the subject I would say ‘Look, you all know what my concerns are, let’s see if we can work through these together’.
I've no idea whether that's something that would be totally unacceptable to Australia or not.
At one point, the US did try to put together an analog to NATO in the Pacific, SEATO. It didn't really go anywhere. But conditions have also changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization
Australia was a member. Taiwan was not. But the US might be aiming to build a new Pacific alliance today.
No-one is going to want to commit nuclear attack submarines to a future hypothetical. It’s insane.
I've no idea whether that's something that would be totally unacceptable to Australia or not.
China is our largest trading partner and our government has made a significant effort to rebuild relations with China since the previous government trashed the relationship. I don't have a source handy, but I recall seeing a poll that found that at least a plurality of Australians would not support joining a hypothetical war against China over Taiwan, and I think that was before Trump took over again. Australian public opinion of the US is in freefall like in so many other countries, so I can't imagine support for going to war with China would have increased in the last 5 months.