[The US Is Responsible for Selling the Most Expensive Dog Food, While Australia Is Responsible for Being the Lowest-Quality Dog]
The landlord has no surplus grain either. The Pentagon is considering abolishing the "Aukus" (Aukus) agreement previously signed with the UK and Australia, saying that the US nuclear submarines will not be sold. Realizing they have been deceived, the Australians are furious. Some people commented to curse the Trump administration, while others proposed to take a certain Eastern country as their godfather. Isn't it just nuclear submarines? Wherever you buy them, this place doesn't suit me, there's always another place. If everywhere doesn't suit me, I'll join the Eighth Route Army!
What does this have to do with my Chuan?
There have been too many boomerang news stories recently, and I'm almost liver-deep. Wealthy accompanies me every day to relieve my fatigue, but when the camera focuses on me, I fall asleep at once. According to comprehensive reports from American Bloomberg, British The Telegraph, and Sky News Australia, the Pentagon recently disclosed a major statement announcing a review of the "Aukus" agreement signed by the US with the UK and Australia during Biden's administration. The reason is that Trump feels tired and no longer wants the US to be the old subordinate who must respond to everyone's requests and protect everyone as the world's top老大, but instead hopes to pass the burden to allies, each cleaning up in front of their own door. Only in this way can the US concentrate its precious military resources - especially naval shipbuilding industrial resources - as much as possible on its own national defense construction.
According to Bloomberg, the US shipbuilding industry has declined significantly in recent years. Now, not only is it difficult to build surface ships, but even the nuclear submarines, which are the重中之重of the US Navy, are under threat. Last year, a senior US lawmaker revealed that the construction progress of the new US Virginia-class attack nuclear submarine was two years behind schedule, and it is expected to exceed $17 billion by 2030, and this is a conservative estimate.
In order to ensure that the size of its underwater nuclear fleet does not decline significantly in the future, the US must now focus its efforts on its own nuclear submarine orders. In this case, the "Aukus" agreement naturally falls by the wayside.
Nuclear submarines are currently one of the few advantages of the US Navy over China. They must be preserved at all costs; if they are not preserved, then death awaits.
So-called "Aukus" agreement is simply that Australia pays, the US and UK provide ships and technology to supply Australia's navy with nuclear submarines. This agreement was signed in September 2021, when Biden was still the US president.
The "Aukus" agreement can be divided into two parts: the first part is US-Australia cooperation, where the US will sell up to five Virginia-class attack nuclear submarines to Australia in the 2030s; the second part is US-UK-Australia collaboration, where the US and UK will assist Australia in building a next-generation nuclear submarine designed by the UK in Adelaide, a major shipbuilding industrial center in Australia. To commemorate the unbreakable alliance friendship between the US, UK, and Australia, this next-generation nuclear submarine is named the "Aukus"-class attack nuclear submarine.
This "Aukus" agreement has a particularly big "highlight"—it's expensive. It is estimated to cost more than 100 billion Australian dollars to purchase five Virginia-class attack nuclear submarines, and it will take at least 150 billion Australian dollars to develop and build the Aukus-class attack nuclear submarines. The Australian government previously estimated that if the entire "Aukus" agreement were implemented, including procurement, construction, maintenance, and infrastructure upgrades, the total cost would reach an astonishing nearly 370 billion Australian dollars, or about 240 billion US dollars, by 2055.
2500 billion US dollars, these ships combined in this picture couldn't spend one zero of this money.
What does 240 billion US dollars mean, comrades? The defense budget expenditure of China in 2024 is also approximately 230 billion US dollars, and this money needs to be shared among the sea, land, air, and fire branches of the armed forces, including food and supplies. Nuclear submarines may be expensive, but they won't eat up our annual military budget by buying 5 or 6, or even 10 or so of them.
As for Australia, it's even worse. The defense budget expenditure of Australia last year was only about 36.8 billion US dollars. Considering that the size of the Australian Defense Force is not large, this money should be more than enough for equipment purchases and personnel costs. However, unfortunately, Australia got on the "Aukus" boat. Now things are difficult. Many accounts simply cannot be balanced. Moreover, the risk of this agreement lasting until the mid-century is great. How long can an Australian government stay in power? Predicting what happens three to five years later is already difficult, and now planning for something in 2055 is nonsense, isn't it?
[Australian People Are Angry: If the US Won't Sell, We'll Buy from China!]
Australian people are not unaware of the pros and cons. Therefore, in recent years, there have been voices in Australia opposing the implementation of the "Aukus" agreement. The reasons are that it is labor-intensive and wasteful, and will tie Australia to the wheels of the US and UK war machine. The "Aukus" agreement sounds nice as a trilateral alliance between the US, UK, and Australia, but sounds bad as the US and UK using Australia's wine to pour out their own grievances, purely treating Australia as a blood sac.
Anyone with a slightly normal brain—whether they are Australian or not—can actually see through this. Leaving aside whether buying nuclear submarines is feasible, even if they are bought, they don't have much meaning for Australia, but they are strategically very tempting for the US and the UK, especially the US.
British conception of the "Aukus"-class nuclear submarine
With the continuous enhancement of China's military strength, the iron tide red flow of the People's Navy is no longer satisfied with being confined to the first and second island chains, but is moving towards the broader Pacific Ocean. The US has been worried about this and urgently wants to strengthen its strategic presence in the Indo-Pacific region.
By 2050, the People's Liberation Army might have 098-class nuclear submarines.
But these days, even the landlord has no surplus grain. What to do? After much thought, they finally dragged Australia, the landlord's foolish son, to act as the scapegoat, and tricked Australia into the so-called "underwater nuclear-powered joint fleet" under the pretext of strengthening the US's return to the Indo-Pacific strategy, saying that this fleet would become the "stabilizing needle" of the continued dominance of the Pacific by the "Aukus" alliance. In reality, it was asking Australia to pay for itself to serve as a dog, and the dog food was extremely expensive.
In fact, from the perspective of the US, this "Aukus" agreement is quite advantageous. Not only does it advance the US's long-awaited return to the Indo-Pacific strategy, but it also makes a lot of money. But unfortunately, this agreement was reached during Biden's term, and the White House is now run by Trump. You say the "Aukus" alliance benefits the US? Then I ask you, which US are you talking about? The US of the Democrats and liberals, or the US of the Republicans and MAGA supporters? If it's the former, then Trump wouldn't want to take advantage of this deal even if he had to pay.
Although I often say that Trump's personality is "only willing to take advantage, not willing to lose", when it comes to specific issues like his attitude toward the "Aukus" agreement, this situation cannot be generalized.
Selling nuclear submarines to Australia definitely has profits. The unit price of the Virginia-class nuclear submarines sold by the US to Australia is almost equivalent to the cost of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. With such a large profit margin, even if the submarine compartments are filled with Smith commissioners, the US still makes a profit. However, the US profits don't mean Trump profits, and the "Aukus" agreement, as Biden's achievement, has become a veritable poison legacy today. It's normal for Trump to cut it, and it would be strange if he didn't.
"Aukus" agreement is Biden's achievement
Although the道理 Australian people understand, when this piece of paper is really broken by Trump, they are still pretty devastated. In the comment section of the related report on Sky News Australia, there are everywhere filled with mournful cries of Australian netizens whose hearts are broken. Some people angrily condemned the Trump administration for betraying allies, some said that the current US is no different from rogue states like Russia and North Korea, and some worried that without the "Aukus" agreement and nuclear submarines, the Australian Defense Force would not be able to fight against the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Even some people sarcastically said, "Now that the US won't sell, why don't we just go to the East and buy?"
"Why can't we try to talk to a certain Eastern country? Everyone knows that their manufacturing is unparalleled. They can make anything. Do you support Australia buying nuclear submarines from the East? I clearly tell you that I am definitely supportive, as long as it's not second-hand goods from North Korea."
"Oh, I'm really heartbroken to see the US turn out this way. What's the difference between this US and rogue states like Russia and North Korea?"
"Hehe, Albanese must be thrilled now. Canceling the 'Aukus' means he can buy nuclear submarines from the East at a quarter of the price. The East not only sells us nuclear submarines but also 'free gifts' a batch of officers and sailors. I am very sure that if Australia puts on a more sincere tone, the East will even allow us to rename these nuclear submarine fleets. What should we call them? Why not call them the People's Liberation Army Australian Theater Naval Undersea Fleet?"
"I'm sorry to see such a good cooperation fall apart. No matter how you look at it, deterrence is stronger than war and post-war reconstruction. Considering Australia's national scale and the complexity of its surrounding geopolitical environment, let alone competing with the Chinese People's Liberation Army, in this situation, introducing nuclear submarines is obviously the right choice. It is worth bearing a certain fiscal deficit to defend Australia's national interests. If Australia taxes me to buy nuclear submarines, I am willing."
"Don't be so pessimistic. I think this might not be a bad thing for the government. What if enemies come knocking? We can just wave the French flag and surrender. This way, we can save billions of dollars."
"What enemies? Who are you referring to?"
"Who are our enemies, don't you know in your hearts?"
"Australia's enemies are mostly lurking within our own borders!"
"If nothing else works, why don't we become a state of the US? What else can we do? Do we still have a choice?"
[If Australia Can't Get US Nuclear Submarines, Why Not Consider Indian Goods?]
Hey, you Australians, don't say it, you're right. There are brothers out there. It's just nuclear submarines. Non-nuclear countries seeking nuclear submarines are not just Australia. Brazil's little plan is also clicking loudly. As early as 2008, Brazil launched a secret plan called "Submarine Pro" (Prosub), cooperating with France to use French core technology, based on the mature French "Shark" class submarine design, to first build four conventional submarines, and then a nuclear-powered submarine.
Conventional submarines built by Brazil with French technology
The "Submarine Pro" plan is expected to cost $10 billion. The French originally suggested providing a full package solution, from submarine construction technology to nuclear propulsion systems, with Brazil just paying the bill. However, Brazil has its own ambitions as a major power and insists on developing its own nuclear reactor to ensure technological autonomy.
Because of insisting on developing its own nuclear reactor, Brazil's nuclear submarine program has progressed quite slowly. The first submarine, "Alvaro Alberto," did not hold a groundbreaking ceremony until October 2023 and officially started construction in 2024. The progress of Brazil's self-developed low-enrichment pressurized water reactor hasn't been much faster either; the first land prototype reactor was delivered for testing in July 2022, and whether it will be usable remains to be seen. Although Brazil is confident and claims that "Alvaro Alberto" will be launched in 2029 and operational before 2034, given Brazilians' laid-back nature, I don't think the reliability of this claim is any higher than the likelihood of the Brazilian team qualifying for the next World Cup and eliminating Brazil in the group stage.
Model of "Alvaro Alberto" and Brazil's self-developed nuclear reactor
However, regardless of this, Brazil's path has pointed out a direction for Australians: if you want nuclear submarines, you don't have to rely solely on the US; as long as the money is sufficient, finding the French is also fine.
However, this raises a new issue. Before the US, UK, and Australia reached a consensus on the "Aukus" agreement, France and Australia originally had a submarine cooperation, and Australia initially favored the "Shark" class submarine. Later, the US and UK intervened, persuading Australia to abandon the French "Shark" and buy nuclear submarines from them instead. This deal was forced to fall apart.
The cooked duck flew away, and this incident left Macron furious back then. Not only did Franco-Australian relations plummet to rock bottom, but the US and France almost came to blows. During his visit to the US, Macron once had a disagreement with Biden over this issue, and relations even escalated to the point of recalling diplomats. Although Macron eventually swallowed the broken teeth, the grudge France holds with the US and Australia over this matter is not easily resolved.
France and Australia were not very pleased with this transaction
You Australians realize this only after hitting a wall with the Americans. Even if the French can swallow this humiliation, Australia will likely bleed heavily. If Brazil and France have done well together, the first nuclear submarine is not expected to be completed until after 2030. If this goes to Australia, the deadline might be pushed to after 2050.
By then, New China will have celebrated its centenary, and the People's Liberation Army might already be equipped with 098 or even 100-class nuclear submarines. At this time, if you receive a outdated submarine made from outdated French technology, how useful could it be against the iron tide of the People's Navy fleet?
However, although I've exaggerated this quite frighteningly, there is always room for maneuver. If Australia can't get US nuclear submarines and can't bring itself to buy French nuclear submarines, don't worry. Australia has another option. As we all know, there are two Eastern powers, and both happen to be capable of building nuclear submarines. If Australia doesn't mind minor details like quality control and quality, I suggest talking to India. Although India's nuclear submarine production capacity is tighter than that of the US, as long as Australia offers enough money, such deals that are highly prestigious and fit the narrative of Bharatiya win theory, I believe Indians would be quite willing to accept.
Moreover, although India's nuclear submarine technology may not be very advanced, it might be more effective in defending against outside powers coveting Australia than US nuclear submarines.
Modi: Want to buy nuclear submarines? Just find us India.
On March 8, 2014, during high-pressure hydraulic box testing of India's first domestically produced nuclear submarine, the "Defender," at Vishakhapatnam Port, the hydraulic box cover accidentally fell off, causing one death and two injuries; in February 2017, the "Defender" lost power and electricity due to flooding in the engine room when a crew member forgot to close the watertight door at the rear left, resulting in short-circuit damage to electrical equipment and corrosion of metal components. The nuclear submarine was out of service for 10 months, causing economic losses of $3 billion.
Although India's time with domestic nuclear submarines is not long, its accident rate is absolutely leading. If the Australian Navy invites such a god of pestilence into their home, I believe, even looking at India's intimidating reputation for manufacturing, various outside powers would keep their distance from Australia's coastline. The most terrifying martial art in the world is the one without form. Who would dare not to fear a nuclear submarine that you yourself don't know when it might explode? With such a god of pestilence guarding your home, who would dare to provoke you?
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7515341973075640870/
Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your opinions by clicking the "Top/Downvote" buttons below.