America - The Official Thread

[Keef]

It's not clear to me that he was actually part of that procedure.

It's probably not clear to any of us what the procedure is because we're civilians without top secret clearances and aren't allowed to know the procedure. But I'd argue that Milley absolutely is part of the procedure of launching nukes, or of starting war. He's literally the top military officer in the country - military action does not occur without his direction. Nuclear launches do not occur without his authorization - the National Military Command Center is operated by the Air Force and its operators are several steps below Milley and the various branch leaders. These officers are absolutely part of the chain of command and absolutely have a leadership role over nuclear launches - the president might be the only one with the authority to order nukes but ultimately they are a civilian and military leaders could derail any wayward attempts because they have control over the command center.

I agree with you that nothing treasonous was done here but I personally don't think it's even worth analyzing. To think that the president literally has one-man control over our nuclear arsenal and can launch them with zero checks along the way is preposterous Trump-like thinking. That's precisely why he's so pissed, because he assumed he was a dictator with total control, forgetting about the dense military chain of command above the lowly operators who actually turn the keys.

 

[Danoff]

It's probably not clear to any of us what the procedure is because we're civilians without top secret clearances and aren't allowed to know the procedure. But I'd argue that Milley absolutely is part of the procedure of launching nukes, or of starting war. He's literally the top military officer in the country - military action does not occur without his direction. Nuclear launches do not occur without his authorization - the National Military Command Center is operated by the Air Force and its operators are several steps below Milley and the various branch leaders. These officers are absolutely part of the chain of command and absolutely have a leadership role over nuclear launches - the president might be the only one with the authority to order nukes but ultimately they are a civilian and military leaders could derail any wayward attempts because they have control over the command center.

I agree with you that nothing treasonous was done here but I personally don't think it's even worth analyzing. To think that the president literally has one-man control over our nuclear arsenal and can launch them with zero checks along the way is preposterous Trump-like thinking. That's precisely why he's so pissed, because he assumed he was a dictator with total control, forgetting about the dense military chain of command above the lowly operators who actually turn the keys.

It's a nice idea, but it's not exactly what the US has in place.

Before the order can be processed by the military, the president must be positively identified using a special code issued on a plastic card, nicknamed the "biscuit".[7] The United States has a two-man rule in place at nuclear launch facilities, and while only the president can order the release of nuclear weapons, the order must be verified by the secretary of defense to be an authentic order given by the president (there is a hierarchy of succession in the event that the president is killed in an attack). This verification process deals solely with verifying that the order came from the actual president. The secretary of defense has no veto power and must comply with the president's order.[7] Once all the codes have been verified, the President "may direct the use of nuclear weapons through an execute order via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the combatant commanders, and, ultimately, to the forces in the field exercising direct control of the weapons."[8] These orders are given and then re-verified for authenticity.

It is argued that the president has almost sole authority to initiate a nuclear attack because the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot veto it.[9][10][11] However, the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief is not unlimited and US law dictates that the attack must be lawful and that military officers are required to refuse to execute unlawful orders, such as those that violate the Laws of Armed Conflict.[12] Therefore, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other servicemembers in the chain of command must refuse to issue the execute order if such an order would be unlawful. Several military officials, including Gen. Hyten, have testified to Congress that they would refuse to carry out an unlawful order for a nuclear strike.[13] If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were to refuse to issue the execute order as directed by the President, the President could reassign or fire the Chairman and appoint a replacement, including waiving the required credentials if all other qualified officers refused the appointment or the President determines that it is in the national interest.[14] Further, off-the-shelf strike packages are pre-vetted by lawyers to confirm that they are legal and, thus, such a strike would be presumed to be a lawful order.[15] Further, military service members have been reprimanded for questioning, notably Major Harold Hering, who was discharged from the Air Force in late 1973 for asking the question "How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"[16]

Gen. Milley is the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, and has been since 2019. It looks like the Chairman gets to refuse to issue the order if the order is considered unlawful. So It's not clear that Milley is not part of the procedure either. The test here, as to whether the attack is lawful, is not super helpful, but it is helpful. It looks like Milley did have some ground to claim that he's part of the procedure. I've seen it argued the other way as well, but at least according to wikipedia, it looks like he might have had a leg to stand on when verifying the legality of the order. The presumption is that he would be fired on the spot for making the determination that it was unlawful - at which time things might have gotten out of had quickly. Still, that suggests that I gave too much credence to Trump's claim. Even if Milley had said that the order was unlawful and refused to fire, it would not be treason (and possibly not even a court martial).

Milley looks like a hero to me. Honestly. He was protecting the nation against a serious threat. And he was doing it at great personal risk, not just to his career but potentially to his life. I'm sure if Trump were President he would want to see Milley executed (I'm not saying that would actually be carried out). He used every avenue he had, and toed the line carefully, and secretively, to ensure that the US survived.

 

[Keef]

I can imagine that a lifelong military man would do what needed to be done to save the system, even if it literally came to blows inside the office. I'm imagining a brawl in the Situation Room right now and I'm not sure many of the tough guys on Trump's cabinet would've made it to the end.

 

[TexRex]

Minor language warning for the article proper, as there's a single expletive (one frequently synonymous with feces) in the second paragraph. It's censored below.

Dark Omen in Rep. Anthony Gonzalez’s Retirement

A slap in the face for delusional Republicans who want to pretend the GOP is anything but a pro-insurrection Trump cult.

www.thebulwark.com

The retirement of Trump-impeachment-supporting Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio), in part over fears for the safety of his young family, is a deeply ominous sign for our politics.

It might be a Trump era cliché to say that “this is not normal” but a 36-year-old congressman in his second term doesn’t just retire. That is the start of one’s career, not the finish. Moreover, a 36-year-old Republican congressman sure as **** doesn’t retire because he is scared Republican voters might hurt his family.

That is not normal. At all. It is a flashing siren about just how dangerous the Republican party has become.

Gonzalez had the perfect story for his district. He is a former Ohio State football star who decided to get a Stanford MBA after his playing career was cut short by injuries. He had an essentially down-the-line conservative voting record and no reason to be concerned about re-election until the former president began attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election following his defeat at the hands of “Sleepy” Joe Biden.

Unlike fellow Ohio congressman Jim Jordan, Gonzalez was not willing to go along with the phony election-certification charade. He eventually became one of ten Republican House members to vote for Trump’s impeachment over the actions that led to the January 6 insurrection.

The backlash from that vote is what led to the harassment and eventually tonight’s resignation.

It resulted in a primary from Max Miller, a douchey trust-fund baby who worked for Trump and allegedly assaulted his girlfriend and colleague, Stephanie Grisham. Unlike Gonzalez, Miller was no athletic hero. He had no record of accomplishment, though he does have a rap sheet. He had no coherent policy critique of Gonzalez. The primary was to be solely a referendum over whether voters of the district wanted their representative to be a Trump toady even if it means overthrowing American democracy.

Gonzalez’s primary race—not Liz Cheney’s or Adam Kinzinger’s—would have been the prime test of whether the Republican party was a cult in thrall to a wannabe authoritarian or a conservative political party. The answer was so clear that Gonzalez didn’t even wait around to find out. He barely made it out of the starter’s gate:


Gonzalez, a father of two, said the resignation was about living a “fuller family life.” But it wasn’t hard to read between the lines. He told the New York Times that he no longer wishes to live a life where he has to “have my wife and kids escorted through the airport” by security and where he receives ominous messages from people saying “we’re coming to your house.”

And Gonzalez is not the only Republican to pass on a race with the specter of MAGA violence looming overhead. Georgia Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan, who stood his ground during Trump’s phony attempts to contest the Georgia election, recently told me that he also had a disturbing realization one day, as he looked out at the security protecting him, about how the threats targeting him and his family were coming from inside the GOP tent. Duncan announced back in May that he wouldn’t run again.

Geoff Duncan and Anthony Gonzalez are walking, talking avatars for what the “Waiting for the World to Change” Republicans want the party to be: They are both conservative, savvy, and early in promising careers. There is an entire class of professional ostriches who have spent a half-decade wishing Trump away, downplaying the danger, and imagining that there is hope for a responsible conservative party once he magically disappears. Duncan and Gonzalez are just the kind of Republican electeds that that crowd wished for.

But they are now walking off the field in part over the violent, credible threats they received for not going along with Trump’s coup attempt that led to the sacking of the Capitol. They are set to be replaced by the likes of Max Miller, avatars of deplorable Trumpism.

As for what’s next, Gonzalez told the Times, “I don’t believe [Trump] can ever be president again. . . . Most of my political energy will be spent working on that exact goal.”

Having seen the ugly face of the Trumpist GOP firsthand, Gonzalez understands the stakes and the peril.

I hope he understands the political implications of his statement. It’s long past time for those who want the GOP to be a party of Anthony Gonzalezes, not a party of Donald Trump Jr. fanboys, to take their heads out of the sand. The Republican party is a pro-insurrection Trump cult and anyone who is not on board is cast aside.

This is the aim of Trumpism, to which violence is endemic. Drive those deemed to be non-partisan (though they may be Republican, they're perceived as not beholden to Trump) out of office, at any level, through unrelenting abuse and threats of violence, and supplant a cultist in their stead.


Rosendale is the sole US House delegate for Montana.

 

[Danoff]

Minor language warning for the article proper, as there's a single expletive (one frequently synonymous with feces) in the second paragraph. It's censored below.

Dark Omen in Rep. Anthony Gonzalez’s Retirement

A slap in the face for delusional Republicans who want to pretend the GOP is anything but a pro-insurrection Trump cult.

www.thebulwark.com

This is the aim of Trumpism, to which violence is endemic. Drive those deemed to be non-partisan (though they may be Republican, they're perceived as not beholden to Trump) out of office, at any level, through unrelenting abuse and threats of violence, and supplant a cultist in their stead.


Rosendale is the sole US House delegate for Montana.

I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag on this one. I'm not sure how we go back to being a country where elected (and appointed) officials, even in positions like Fauci and Raffensperger, not just members of congress, will receive death threats regardless. Mostly from the right, but ultimately from the left as well, since when one side lowers the bar, the other side seems to inevitably sink to it. This is not going to be good for the emotional intelligence level of our government - as only people either without families or willing to see them threatened will participate. That doesn't rule out all good people, but it does strongly bias against them.

 

[Keef]

I personally think that is clear evidence that the Republican party is withering and dying, as any even remotely moderate member is scared and leaving. Eventually they'll be left with only hardcore extremist members. We've got precedent that new extremists can get elected but these upcoming midterms will provide us real proof of whether or not that is a sustainable trend. If it is, we've got problems, even as the party shrinks.

 

[Dotini]

France, America's oldest ally, has suddenly recalled its ambassadors to the US and Australia. This is an extreme resort usually taken only by enemies, not allies. Just what have we done to justify such a terrible reaction?

 

[TexRex]

Australia placed an order for American nuclear subs.

 

[AZpocalypse]

Not for nothing, but there's absolutely a habit of members to try and bait people in this subforum who they know have bad opinions into giving one about whatever the topic of the day is so those members can wind the person up.

 

[TexRex]

Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

Edit: I'm just going to put this here.

Cancel Culture is referring to the current trend of blacklisting and villainizing transgressors to the status quo, whether they are celebrities, individuals, small businesses, or corporations.

If you hurt someone's feelings, they will put a disproportionate amount of effort into letting everyone EVERYBODY know how racist, sexist, transphobic and Republican you are. They will threaten your livelyhood if you're a celebrity, because the news is their pet and it will go public with what a scumbag you are. Your show will get cancelled because you said __ about , or you don't agree with or you associate with __ and they're not going along with the Leftist Agenda either, so now they hate YOU TOO.

Hence the name "Cancel Culture". If they don't like you, they don't just leave you alone - they attack you.

Dig that victimhood. I asked about this post at the time, as it was a response to a post of mine, and predictably, there was no response to my solicitation.

Unrelated, it seems markdown syntax strikes again and has resulted in bolding of text that wasn't bolded in the original post that I've quoted above.

 

[UKMikey]

Yep... people don't need to be baited into giving their wind-uppable bad opinions... seems to me like, most times, they just show up on the thread unbidden.

 

[UKMikey]

Whoops... this should be in the election 2020 thread.

 

[Dotini]

Woeful developments on Texas border.

 

[Milouse]

France, America's oldest ally, has suddenly recalled its ambassadors to the US and Australia. This is an extreme resort usually taken only by enemies, not allies. Just what have we done to justify such a terrible reaction?

This is mostly under the radar in US, but this is front news in France for 5 days now. And yes, US did everything wrong here. Unless Biden's administration find a fix for this, there will be a before and an after that infamous AUKUS announcement day regarding US-France relationship. Macron's opponents, from far right to far left, are all asking him to take an even harder stance (like withdrawing from Nato, which won't happen soon).

Here's an article that summarize everything, deflecting the bs from AU and US.
--------------------

------------------
Full (not that long) article : https://www.thelocal.fr/20210918/op...e-row-shows-that-macron-was-right-about-nato/

 

[Tornado]

Or the Biden administration can just ignore it until France tires of stamping their feet and acting like they are going to go to war because they got cut out of an arms deal after someone offered Australia something better than France was going to give them. If it takes until the election next year for France to stop having a conniption over it, so be it; because at this point all of the news on the matter has been an elaborate he said/she said but one where Australia still gets something that's better for their needs, in spite of the insistence that "the US did everything wrong here" and that this is going to be some tremendous turning point in US/Europe relations.





The fact that China is seemingly even more angry about the alliance than France suggests to me that it's more of a net positive for Australia as a deterrence measure even if the stuff Australia is getting wasn't better than they originally planned; which raises the question about whether France is mad because they feel the new deal won't be as successful at keeping Chinese aggression in the area in check without French involvement like they keep saying, or if they are actually mad because they can't profit from and gain regional influence in keeping Chinese aggression in the area in check and build up themselves as the leader of Europe (read: The exact thing they are complaining the US is doing, and the latter of which that "deflecting BS" article even notes).

 

[Milouse]

Or the Biden administration can just ignore it until France tires of stamping their feet and acting like they are going to go to war because they got cut out of an arms deal after someone offered Australia something better than France was going to give them.

I stopped after this phrase, sorry. If you don't make a minimum effort to understand the situation - i linked a short article that dismissed all this bs - why losing time on this?

 

[Tornado]

I stopped after this phrase, sorry

No you're not.

If you don't make a minimum effort to understand the situation

France sets up an arms deal with Australia, negotiated over several years, to outfit Australia with a dozen conventional submarines to replace Australia's decades old submarines; since they would not be as strategically useful as needed against a Chinese government that is trying to exert its control over the region.

The US offers them something better a few years after that deal is announced that also seems to be more beneficial for Australia directly in terms of local development, the UK tags along; and all told the announcement actually actively makes China mad in the process since it probably is a substantial upgrade in capability over what Australia initially agreed to.

France goes ballistic, accuses the three countries of "treason", of deliberately attempting to destabilize European relations, of deliberately trying to minimize France's role on the global stage, of deliberately trying to destabilize existing military alliances, of proving once again that the EU cannot rely on the US for anything after four years of Trump.

Australia claims they felt the things France was going to give them in it wouldn't have suitably fit their strategic needs and had (for years now) allegedly mentioned these concerns to France military leaders. France says Australia is lying about this and had never expressed any reservations to anybody and that them working with the US for over a year on getting something better is just proof that they always intended on "betraying" France.

France escalated the aneurysm they are having over this to the level of doing something commonly associated as something done before countries declare war on each other.






I think I have a reasonable understanding of the situation, even if I'm not in full lockstep agreement with the opinions expressed in French op-ed article posted by the French member regurgitating French government talking points about why everyone except the French government are supposed to be viewed like assholes over not respecting French political ambitions in Indochina. And I actually am legitimately sorry that that bothers you so much; and that you think it's in other nations' interest first and foremost to protect the French government's ego in an election year; and that you think the French government saying something happened is proof that it actually happened even if other governments claim otherwise; since usually your political views are much more level headed.

I linked a short article that dismissed all this bs

You certainly linked a short article, in any case.

why losing time on this?

I think this applies more to your post here than it does to mine.

 

[Dotini]

Joe Biden's less-than-perfect holiday. Just as he leaves the White House for his first off day from work in ages, the ceiling falls in with simultaneous bad news: the drone strike gone horribly wrong in Afghanistan, the FDA vote against booster shots for all Americans over 16, and France's angry recall of its ambassador to the United States.

One stunning afternoon: Setbacks imperil Biden's reset

In one stunning afternoon, President Joe Biden was dealt a series of setbacks. The challenges are examples of the the difficulty he's faced trying to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Afghanistan and the need to be a more reliable partner to shaken allies.

apnews.com

 

[Joey D]

France says Australia is lying about this and had never expressed any reservations to anybody and that them working with the US for over a year on getting something better is just proof that they always intended on "betraying" France.

Which is funny:

Australian documents showed French submarine project was at risk for years

France should not have been surprised that Australia cancelled a submarine contract, as major concerns about delays, cost overruns and suitability had been aired officially and publicly for years, Australian politicians said.

www.reuters.com

If you hit your limit on Reuters articles, Yahoo has it too:

UPDATE 2-Australian documents showed French submarine project was at risk for years

France should not have been surprised that Australia cancelled a submarine contract, as major concerns about delays, cost overruns and suitability had been aired officially and publicly for years, Australian politicians said. Paris has recalled its ambassadors from Canberra and Washington...

finance.yahoo.com

I'd think Australia probably was pretty upfront with France about the fact the technology they were trying to sell them wouldn't work, at least that's what the documents are showing.

It's weird that France is getting its knickers all in a twist over this too. Like is it really worth destabilizing the EU, Europe as a whole, and NATO over what $60 billion AUD? I think France is just mad that the world doesn't consider them players anymore and they're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It's also not up to Australia to protect anyone's interest but its own. They're sure as hell not going to be protecting France's interest with a handful of diesel-powered subs either.

 

[NotThePrez]

This is mostly under the radar in US, but this is front news in France for 5 days now. And yes, US did everything wrong here. Unless Biden's administration find a fix for this, there will be a before and an after that infamous AUKUS announcement day regarding US-France relationship. Macron's opponents, from far right to far left, are all asking him to take an even harder stance (like withdrawing from Nato, which won't happen soon).

Here's an article that summarize everything, deflecting the bs from AU and US.
--------------------
View attachment 1081914
------------------
Full (not that long) article : https://www.thelocal.fr/20210918/op...e-row-shows-that-macron-was-right-about-nato/

My takeaway from this (as well as little extra digging into the subs themselves) is that France is pissed because Australia, rather than take some trimeed-down versions of existing submarines, decided to take an offer for some submarines that, while not capable of nuclear warfare, better suit their own strategic needs and, since the UK/US subs are nuclear powered, offer more capabilities in terms of range and deployment time than diesel-electric subs in the event of conventional long-range naval warfare (the latter point is admittedly a guess). Since these are fresh, slightly more modern nuclear subs and not trimmed-down versions of existing submarines, it also gives Australia greater capability as a deterrent to China than would've been previously acquired (which China seems to not be happy about, if the response from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs is anything to go by).

Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said during a regular news briefing in Beijing that the submarine agreement would “seriously damage regional peace and stability, exacerbate an arms race and harm international nuclear nonproliferation efforts,” according to a transcript issued by the ministry.

“This is utterly irresponsible conduct,” Mr. Zhao said.

The French government is therefore pissed because A) they weren't able to make some quick cash selling less-than-amazing equipment to an ally, and B) they got their ego a bit bruised because they weren't able to enhance their political power in a region far from home. If France truly wanted to give the Australian Navy the staying power to fend off China, perhaps rather than get pissy about their own deal falling through (and making a move that's generally considered one of the first steps in declaring war on another nation), they offer resources and material to the UK-US deal, so that they can also have at least some contribution (and therefore negotiating power) in equipping the Australian Navy.

Also, I have to say that the article you linked is also quite pro-France, and doesn't seem to be talking about the situation in good faith (granted, it is an opinion piece). Pretty much the entire piece does nothing but talk about how much this new deal hurts France, while doing very little to explain why this happened in the first place, and takes several opprotunities to throw a jab at the US, Australia and the UK. The author also uses 2 tiny island nations as "being part of France," and as such basically ignores any sovereignty that they have, and sees them more as political playing chips, something which IIRC the French government has been criticized for multiple times in the past.

Edit:

France goes ballistic,....

 

[Joey D]

The author also uses 2 tiny island nations as "being part of France," and as such basically ignores any sovereignty that they have, and sees them more as political playing chips, something which IIRC the French government has been criticized for multiple times in the past.

They didn't even get that right either. I assume to the west they're talking about Réunion, but you hit Mauritius before that and British Indian Ocean Territory before that. Depending on where you start your westward trek too, you can hit Indonesia. The same goes for an eastward trek too, you hit Papua New Guinea before New Caledonia. Also, while I didn't measure it, the Solomon Islands are awfully close too.

 

[NotThePrez]

They didn't even get that right either. I assume to the west they're talking about Réunion,...

Indeed.

...but you hit Mauritius before that and British Indian Ocean Territory before that. Depending on where you start your westward trek too, you can hit Indonesia. The same goes for an eastward trek too, you hit Papua New Guinea before New Caledonia. Also, while I didn't measure it, the Solomon Islands are awfully close too.

I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I'm an expert on Oceanic geography, but something about a French Territory being immediately west of Australia didn't sound right. Also, even if New Caledonia is technically the closest thing to eastern Australia, I'm pretty confident that for most people, if they're leaving Australia from the east, chances are that they're specifically going to New Zealand, which I'm confident in saying has much greater diplomatic ties to Australia than France does currently.

 

[sirjim73]

My rule of thumb is as follows...
If it upsets the CCP, that's usually because it weakens them in some way.
Which means it's a good thing for everybody else. Including France, if only in an indirect way.

I do accept it's a serious issue for the French. Only those with actual knowledge of what happened before the announcement know the real story, either way.

If Australia really did raise concerns with the French that were basically ignored as suggested in the article above, then I have more sympathy with the Australians than the French, to be honest. If that is not the case then I go the other way, happily.

And yes I am British. But I would say here that if it was the other way round, and the British were in the French position because of what sounds like mismanagement of the original order (or possibly a high level "cock up") (which let's face it has happened often enough in the UK over the years), I would say the same thing.

I'm certainly feeling jealous of France' nuclear power stations at the current time with my gas heating and all...

There's other influences definitely at play here though. Those in the US may not be aware that, since the UK left the EU, France has been trying to use this as an opportunity to increase its influence within the EU and generally. I don't blame them (I would probably do the same). If nothing else, this must have been a PR disaster though which sets that back some.

But I'll finish as I started. If CCP are unhappy, that's usually a good thing for everyone in my opinion.

 

[FPV MIC]

If Australia really did raise concerns with the French that were basically ignored as suggested in the article above, then I have more sympathy with the Australians than the French, to be honest. If that is not the case then I go the other way, happily.

From what I remember about the events earlier this year when the review came up, cost blowouts where a big concern, but bigger still was the 60% (iirc) of the total budget was supposed to be spent here in Australia but the French company still wouldn't commit to that part of the agreement.

It's been reasonably well known here that a Plan B was being looked into.

Edit: Found this. Not sure how the French government couldn't know there were concerns

Thousands of jobs at stake in $90 billion submarine project

Reports that Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ordered a review of the $90 billion future submarine program...

www.9news.com.au

Edit 2: I found the story I read.

Company building Australia's submarines warned to spend big on local companies

The Australian government is getting increasingly frustrated with French company Naval Group's refusal to formalise a pledge to spend at least 60 per cent of the contract value on local suppliers.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Milouse]

Yes, France is upset by the deal killed by the US, but US does that since decades (well, usually in the last minute, not 5 years after) and it doesn't trigger a diplomatic crisis. So please stop thinking this is just that. US repeatedly lied to what it calls an ally for months about such a strategic matter.
Anyway, regarding how the thing were and are going, some laughable details (that anglo-saxon press repeatedly tried to hide under the carpet):


And by the way, the isle of Reunion is not different than any other part of metropolitan France. Reunionese are everywhere in our life, as french from others regions.

 

[Joey D]

And by the way, the isle of Reunion is not different than any other part of metropolitan France. Reunionese are everywhere in our life, as french from others regions.

It still doesn't change the fact that it's not immediately west of Australia, nor is New Caledonia immediately east.

I figured I would do a bit of measuring. From Talbot Island, which is part of Queensland, Papua New Guinea is 7 miles east of it. Indonesia is 500 miles west of the Tiwi Islands. I'm sure there are some discrepancies though since I'm not accounting for the curvature of the Earth, but both are still closer than either Réunion or New Caledonia. Even if you completely ignore everything and go from some place like Perth, you're still going to hit Mauritius before Réunion.

That article makes it seem like French interests make up a big part of the globe when really, they control some tiny islands, a very small sliver of Canada, and a small country in South America.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

RE France diplomatic dust-up -

I have a feeling Macron is making a bigger deal about this publicly to give him some domestic political cover - that's a lot of money the French military industrial complex just lost. So Macron has to make a big deal, be outraged, do all the things, otherwise the people on the ground who are actually losing out on this, will feel like he's not concerned about them. Macron has a pretty fragile coalition, and I think people like submarine assembly technicians (and it being France, their respective unions) are not the kind of people he wants to lose the support of. That's just my theory anyways.

 

[Famine]

That article makes it seem like French interests make up a big part of the globe when really, they control some tiny islands, a very small sliver of Canada, and a small country in South America.

And people are still pissed about them nuking some of the tiny islands in the 1990s.


Incidentally, if you head south in a straight line from Australia, the first sovereign state you'll make landfall on is Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, or Greenland. (though you'll have to pass through Antarctic territory, which, depending on where you start, might be claimed by Argentina, the UK, Australia again, or - yep - France). And if you head north-by-northeast from Mackay, Queensland, you won't stop sailing until you land on the beach at Jenner, California, near Santa Rosa.

Not sure why either of those things is relevant, but then neither is iF yOu Go WeSt FrOm A cErTaIn SpOt YoU'lL hIt "FrAnCe".

 

[NotThePrez]

Yes, France is upset by the deal killed by the US, but US does that since decades (well, usually in the last minute, not 5 years after) and it doesn't trigger a diplomatic crisis. So please stop thinking this is just that.

Then that creates 2 important questions:

1) Why was the French Ambassador to Australia recalled too, if this is a problem solely between the French Government and the US Government? Especially since doing so pretty much kills any possibility of discussion on the matter between France and Australia for the foreseeable future?

2) Why was the French Ambassador to the UK not recalled? After all, the new submarine program is a chiefly joint effort between the US and the UK, so wouldn't it make sense to also recall the UK ambassador as a sign of dissatisfaction?

There seems to be an issue of consistency here if France's primary beef is indeed with the US.

US repeatedly lied to what it calls an ally for months about such a strategic matter.

Is there hard evidence of the US actually lying? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but the only places I've seen saying that there was dishonesty are you, the French Government, and the opinion piece you posted earlier today. With all due respect, none of those are what I would call neutral sources of information given the circumstances.

Right now it seems that Australia were looking to get some subs that better fit their needs, and the US & UK offered them a better alternative than France brought to the table. Hell, the Twitter thread that you linked touches on this somewhat:



On a similar train of thought, it's also worth considering the logistics and capabilities of each platform. Much like a car, diesel powered anything also requires air for the motors to keep running. Now, I'm not any kind of expert in how a propulsion system for a submarine works, but I imagine that means that the sub will have to come up relatively frequently for air compared to a nuclear sub, which does not need air and can run pretty much indefinitely without a need to surface. Since the whole point of the project is to create a platform that can act as a deterrent to China (which the French government has admitted themselves), the last thing you want is for your sub to require surfacing when you're dangerously close to enemy territory, and far from your home turf. That would probably be much less of a problem if you're using subs to patrol your own countries waters.

As far as logistics, @FPV MIC posted (now) two articles showing that the Australian government was requiring France to commit to at least 60% of the budget being spent on Australian industry, and that the French government was dragging its feet for that portion of the deal. I wouldn't be surprised if that also played a part in Australia's decision to back out.

And by the way, the isle of Reunion is not different than any other part of metropolitan France. Reunionese are everywhere in our life, as french from others regions.

My problem (alongside the issue of bad geography that @Joey D brought up) is that the author of the article basically refers to these otherwise independent nations as "France," and that Australia's decision is silly because the next closest nations to them (which is seemingly not the case) are both, in some way, "France." I know that a lot of people generally don't like Trevor Noah, but he talked about this when he received an angry letter from the French Ambassador because of a joke he made following the 2018 World Cup congratulating the mostly-African French football team.

Spoiler: Light Language, N-word at 7:15

This admittedly has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is 100% a personal problem I have with how an otherwise pretty neat country describes its brethren.

Edit: Also, not to be an asshole, but this...



...is a bit silly, since A) we don't know how much the US-UK subs will be. Since it's a joint project, it's very much possible that the subs won't be as much as a Virginia-class (though they likely will be more expensive than the Barracuda, and the Australian citizenry seems to already have a problem with the cost of the Barracuda project).

and B), that 2nd tweet is very much not the case anymore.

 

[Tornado]

That article also seemingly tries to have its cake and eat it too, insinuating that the assertion that the French government knew nothing about Australia having any concerns about the diesel submarines (which is obviously not true, unless the French government was incapable of finding the public news articles that have been posted in this thread since) is definitely the truth and that the other two countries have been lying about it the whole time; but then saying later on that France had offered to sell Australia nuclear subs instead in response to... Concerns from the Australian government about the diesel ones that France claims they never heard?