This is a summary of the posted article (I’m a bot).
Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison says he did not tell French President Macron he was reneging on a €56 billion submarine contract. Morrison said he secretly worked with the U.S. and U.K. to form an alternative alliance in which the three countries would share advanced defense technologies. The dispute was eventually settled in June 2022, with Australia agreeing to pay France more than half a billion euros to bury the hatchet. When it was first announced in 2016, France called the deal the “contract of the century”
I thought that was about the Tinanic tourist sub for a moment.
From a European perspective the AUKUS deal debacle was really unfortunate, but I wonder what Australians think about it now. Relying on the US doesn’t seem that bad, and the nuclear subs really should be more capable, right?
The real advantage to nuclear subs is their operational range, which is definitely an asset to the US and probably is to Australia. However, the most important part of the AUKUS deal is that not only is the US handing over some (probably) Flight III 688i boats or Virginias in the interim, but also the US and the UK are working with Australia to come up with an indigenous design for Australia to manufacture in country. The US and UK are also working to train Australian sailors and engineers on how to build, operate, maintain, and retire nuclear submarines, and that goes a lot further towards building Australia’s defence capabilities than buying a handful of diesel boats from France.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
There’s a reason he’s the ex pm. He was the poster boy of falling upwards but the people finally realised how inept he was.
He wasn’t just the poster boy of failing upwards. He was/is incredibly corrupt and manipulative.
If only he was able to hide the brown stain on the back of his pants at Engadine maccas this well.
This is a summary of the posted article (I’m a bot).
How do I work?
I thought that was about the Tinanic tourist sub for a moment.
From a European perspective the AUKUS deal debacle was really unfortunate, but I wonder what Australians think about it now. Relying on the US doesn’t seem that bad, and the nuclear subs really should be more capable, right?
The real advantage to nuclear subs is their operational range, which is definitely an asset to the US and probably is to Australia. However, the most important part of the AUKUS deal is that not only is the US handing over some (probably) Flight III 688i boats or Virginias in the interim, but also the US and the UK are working with Australia to come up with an indigenous design for Australia to manufacture in country. The US and UK are also working to train Australian sailors and engineers on how to build, operate, maintain, and retire nuclear submarines, and that goes a lot further towards building Australia’s defence capabilities than buying a handful of diesel boats from France.