Why didn’t we get nuclear subs from France? Would the balls up have been different if we had? The French were falling further behind all the time, and the price kept rising.

Besides, the silly deal was entered into by a different government from the present one, and the present government has decided to go back to our natural, English speaking allies. France's reaction to the perfectly sensible breaking of the deal in the interests of our security underlines the fact that the Gallic temperament and way of doing things is not simpatico with ours.

I’m self assured, that acting from a position of panic is no way to run our personal lives,

Why is it evident that the Australian government(s) blunder from one panic to the next without a pause?

A: total and absolute mismanagement and lack of ability!

Dan.

There is a history with Subs and its not good.

First there was the debacle of annoying and cancelling the Japanese Sub Deal. Secondly, its the French.

We have wasted a lazy couple of Billion so far AND we'll have a BIG strategic gap in our defense between when the Collins Class goes to the wreckers in a few years time and 2040 ( I bet there will be delays and cost over runs, the very thing thing they are using as excuses for canceling this latest deal).

I don't want to anybody to say from the Libs, "we can manage the economy or defense better than labour" because the evidence is just not there.

How about we visit Avis and Hertz for Subs?

I believe the idea has merit and should be considered as a stop-gap measure to replace the obsolete Collins class subs. The virtue of the nuclear-powered barracuda is its sheer speed underwater. And as the nuclear version, run rings around the aging collins class. Moreover, I would want nuclear-tipped weapons that they could also supply as a replacement for the bulk of the cancelled subcontract! Yes, it'd cost! but mending fences and the french bak n side with a EU free trade agreement? Would be a better outcome than the current hissy spit!

If we really want The Chinese o back peddle with their ultra-aggressive forward posture? Then a nuclear capability is an absolute. Moreover, having that option in the locker means, never ever having to use them or having them used against us! And simply not the case at this time.

Of course, there are going to be a few dropkicks and gift columnists going ballistic with objections! Objections that should be noted along with their verifiable IDs! We need to know who and what these folk are and their motives!

Nonetheless, these decisions should prevail in any extent! Besides, it's far easier to beg forgiveness than to beg for never ever, extended permission!
Alan B.

I searched in vain for a logical connection between current events and France providing nuclear weapons for the proposed new submarine deal. OK, the words France and nuclear do appear a lot but that's it. France is not now providing the submarines so why should it be involved in weapons? And one doesn't need a nuclear submarine for carrying nuclear weapons any more than nuclear aircraft are needed to carry nuclear bombs. I'm baffled. As for the case presented for Australia acquiring nuclear weapons, it is a totally separate matter and extremely unlikely to get political support, for good reasons. On the other hand there are strong technical reasons for nuclear propulsion of submarines and nuclear energy for the nation. Let's not talk about weapons and energy as if they are part of the same subject. They're not.

Good point ttbn! And that should be put to the french as a salutary lesson in how to honour two-sided contracts and the reason, this time, why the order was cancelled!

Perhaps, when the olive branch is extended, they will negotiate and honour any new contacts far more realistically and not seek bait and change C.R.A.P. as a price-gouging business model going forward?

We are buying 8 subs from the yanks and brits? And could be in the market for French nuclear powered nuclear-armed French ones, as off the shelf purchases? Given the original order was for 12? TBC.
Alan B.