Coming back to this, a bit. @la vie en rouge, while France does build nuclear submarines, it is my understanding French law prohibits the export of nuclear technology abroad. You might want to verify this.
Even if it was the case I think the French government would have looked at amending the law, given the billions of euros in revenues and thousands of high skilled jobs that were involved.
Looking at the OECD abstract of French legislation, I think you are not correct @Gramps49. You might want to check that for yourself.
The Wikipedia article I cited said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.
Copilot AI also gives this information
Under French law, the export of nuclear‑propulsion technology is effectively prohibited because such systems are classified as matériels de guerre (war materials) under Article L2331‑1 of the Code de la Défense and the implementing War Material List, which explicitly includes “systèmes de propulsion spécialement conçus pour les sous‑marins, y compris les réacteurs nucléaires” (ML10.f.2). As a result, any transfer of this technology requires prior government authorization under Article L2335‑2, an authorization France has never granted for nuclear propulsion due to national‑security doctrine and non‑proliferation obligations. Unauthorized export is a criminal offense punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment and substantial fines under Article L2339‑2. These statutory restrictions, combined with France’s commitments under the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines, make the export of naval nuclear‑propulsion systems legally and politically impossible. Sources: Code de la Défense arts. L2331‑1, L2335‑2, L2339‑2; Arrêté du 27 juin 2012, ML10.f.2 (Légifrance).
I have tried to look some of the citations, but I cannot really read French, just a few expressions.
Up to now, all I can say I really know is that France has never offered nuclear technology to Brazil, India, or Australia. If the information above is true, they would have to change the law
Looking at the OECD abstract of French legislation, I think you are not correct @Gramps49. You might want to check that for yourself.
The Wikipedia article I cited said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.
Can you quote where it says that? I can’t find that in the article, though it’s a long article so I may have missed it.
But I did find this quote in the “Features: Pillar 1—Nuclear-powered submarines” section:
Australia considered purchasing French nuclear submarines which use nuclear reactors fuelled by low-enriched uranium at less than 6%. However, French reactor designs have to be refuelled every ten years, and Australia does not have a civil nuclear capability with nuclear energy prohibited. In contrast, American and British designs power the submarines for the expected life of the submarines using nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium (HEU) at 93% enrichment.
That would appear to suggest France did offer nuclear submarines to Australia, and that Australia didn’t purchase them because the need to refuel couldn’t be met in Australia. This article from The Guardian, cited in support of the first sentence of what I quoted says nothing about inability of France to sell to Australia, suggesting instead that France was ready to sell.
Copilot AI also gives this information . . . .
I’m afraid that when I actually know something about a topic, I regularly find AI summaries to be wrong, often very wrong. Trust them at your own risk.
Australia considered purchasing French nuclear submarines which use nuclear reactors fuelled by low-enriched uranium at less than 6%. However, French reactor designs have to be refuelled every ten years, and Australia does not have a civil nuclear capability with nuclear energy prohibited. In contrast, American and British designs power the submarines for the expected life of the submarines using nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium (HEU) at 93% enrichment.
And of course, we know Wikipedia articles are never wrong.
Australia considered purchasing French nuclear submarines which use nuclear reactors fuelled by low-enriched uranium at less than 6%. However, French reactor designs have to be refuelled every ten years, and Australia does not have a civil nuclear capability with nuclear energy prohibited. In contrast, American and British designs power the submarines for the expected life of the submarines using nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium (HEU) at 93% enrichment.
And of course, we know Wikipedia articles are never wrong.
I’m not sure what your point is. It’s really not about whether the article is right or wrong. It’s about citing the article to support your statement and asserting that the article “said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.”
I asked you to provide the quote where the article says that.
Rather than provide the quote you said is in the article, you simply repeated what I quoted, and what I quoted doesn’t support what you said; to the contrary, what I quoted appears to contradict what you said.
Looking at the OECD abstract of French legislation, I think you are not correct @Gramps49. You might want to check that for yourself.
The Wikipedia article I cited said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.
Copilot AI also gives this information
Under French law, the export of nuclear‑propulsion technology is effectively prohibited because such systems are classified as matériels de guerre (war materials) under Article L2331‑1 of the Code de la Défense and the implementing War Material List, which explicitly includes “systèmes de propulsion spécialement conçus pour les sous‑marins, y compris les réacteurs nucléaires” (ML10.f.2). As a result, any transfer of this technology requires prior government authorization under Article L2335‑2, an authorization France has never granted for nuclear propulsion due to national‑security doctrine and non‑proliferation obligations. Unauthorized export is a criminal offense punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment and substantial fines under Article L2339‑2. These statutory restrictions, combined with France’s commitments under the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines, make the export of naval nuclear‑propulsion systems legally and politically impossible. Sources: Code de la Défense arts. L2331‑1, L2335‑2, L2339‑2; Arrêté du 27 juin 2012, ML10.f.2 (Légifrance).
I have tried to look some of the citations, but I cannot really read French, just a few expressions.
Up to now, all I can say I really know is that France has never offered nuclear technology to Brazil, India, or Australia. If the information above is true, they would have to change the law
93% enrichment. I had no idea nuclear submarines used such highly enriched uranium in their fuel. That seems quite dangerous. I guess the uranium is in sufficiently small chunks to avoid a nuclear explosion but still. Are there alternative designs?
Australia considered purchasing French nuclear submarines which use nuclear reactors fuelled by low-enriched uranium at less than 6%. However, French reactor designs have to be refuelled every ten years, and Australia does not have a civil nuclear capability with nuclear energy prohibited. In contrast, American and British designs power the submarines for the expected life of the submarines using nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium (HEU) at 93% enrichment.
And of course, we know Wikipedia articles are never wrong.
I’m not sure what your point is. It’s really not about whether the article is right or wrong. It’s about citing the article to support your statement and asserting that the article “said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.”
I asked you to provide the quote where the article says that.
Rather than provide the quote you said is in the article, you simply repeated what I quoted, and what I quoted doesn’t support what you said; to the contrary, what I quoted appears to contradict what you said.
The point I was making was to your counter, where you said
That would appear to suggest France did offer nuclear submarines to Australia, and that Australia didn’t purchase them because the need to refuel couldn’t be met in Australia. This article from The Guardian, cited in support of the first sentence of what I quoted says nothing about inability of France to sell to Australia, suggesting instead that France was ready to sell.
While Wikipedia made a statement that France had offered nuclear technology to Australia, I can find no other source that makes that statement. This was based on two Guardian articles cited in the footnotes. But everything I find says quite the opposite. Someone is in error.
There is this one statement that seems to say the French Barracuda class was designed as a nuclear sub was being sold to the Australians as a conventional sub
The design was based on the latest French nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Barracuda class, which required converting the nuclear propulsion to conventional propulsion.
Now, if the Australians originally wanted a nuclear sub, who required it to be conventional and why? (This shows the Wikipedia article contradicts itself.)
A bit later, in that same paragraph it says the Australians were planning on outfitting the sub with a Lockheed Martin combat system. I find that odd. Much like putting a Ford transmission in a Dodge pickup.
93% enrichment. I had no idea nuclear submarines used such highly enriched uranium in their fuel. That seems quite dangerous. I guess the uranium is in sufficiently small chunks to avoid a nuclear explosion but still. Are there alternative designs?
To your question: The reason why American and British subs use a 93% enrichment core in their reactor is so that it will last the life of the submarine. Yes, it necessitates some extra safeguards. I have had friends who have served on them, though. They did not give it much of a second thought.
The French do have a system that uses a 6% core. But it requires a ten-year refueling cycle which, in some ways is even more dangerous because of the potential for contamination when spent fuel rods are removed and new rods are inserted.
Australia considered purchasing French nuclear submarines which use nuclear reactors fuelled by low-enriched uranium at less than 6%. However, French reactor designs have to be refuelled every ten years, and Australia does not have a civil nuclear capability with nuclear energy prohibited. In contrast, American and British designs power the submarines for the expected life of the submarines using nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium (HEU) at 93% enrichment.
And of course, we know Wikipedia articles are never wrong.
I’m not sure what your point is. It’s really not about whether the article is right or wrong. It’s about citing the article to support your statement and asserting that the article “said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.”
I asked you to provide the quote where the article says that.
Rather than provide the quote you said is in the article, you simply repeated what I quoted, and what I quoted doesn’t support what you said; to the contrary, what I quoted appears to contradict what you said.
The point I was making was to your counter, where you said
That would appear to suggest France did offer nuclear submarines to Australia, and that Australia didn’t purchase them because the need to refuel couldn’t be met in Australia. This article from The Guardian, cited in support of the first sentence of what I quoted says nothing about inability of France to sell to Australia, suggesting instead that France was ready to sell.
While Wikipedia made a statement that France had offered nuclear technology to Australia, I can find no other source that makes that statement. This was based on two Guardian articles cited in the footnotes. But everything I find says quite the opposite. Someone is in error.
Actually, the Wikipedia article doesn’t make “a statement that France had offered nuclear technology to Australia,” just like it doesn’t appear to say what you claimed earlier: “The Wikipedia article I cited said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.”
As far as I can find, it doesn’t say either of those things. What it actually says is: “Australia considered purchasing French nuclear submarines which use nuclear reactors fuelled by low-enriched uranium at less than 6%.” However, French reactor designs have to be refuelled every ten years, and Australia does not have a civil nuclear capability with nuclear energy prohibited.”
In other words, the article doesn’t actually say one way or the other whether France offered nuclear technology to Australia. That France did in fact do that can be inferred from the Wikipedia article, but the article doesn’t actually say it.
And that’s my point—the problem of citing articles as saying things they don’t actually say.
In the AUKUS article in Wikipedia. In the section on Background, Second Paragraph, third line-at the end, there is this comment
The design was based on the latest French nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Barracuda class, which required converting the nuclear propulsion to conventional propulsion
I pointed out that line appears to contradict the one paragraph about Australia considered the French Nuclear submarine, but decided against it.
My question is, if Australia originally wanted a nuclear attack capability, who required the French sub to be propelled by conventional technology?
Does not make sense.
Based on that Wikipedia article alone. Someone is in Ierror.
Looking at another Wikipedia article on the specific Shortfin Barracuda Submarine, in the discussion about what was offered to the Australians, there is this sentence:
Naval Group (the French builders) submitted a conventionally powered diesel-electric variation to the design – named the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A, a derivative of the SMX Ocean concept – to the competitive evaluation process (CEP) phase of Australia's Collins-class submarine replacement.
That article indicates the French never did off a nuclear submarine to the Australians. They offered a conventional propelled variant based on the Barracuda sub.
Combining the two contradictory articles, the key is the conventional option was the only option the French could have offered to Australia because of certain legal requirements prohibiting the transport of the nuclear technology.
Now I know Doublethink jump all over me, but I did try to cite French laws prohibiting the export of such technology. It is kind of hard not to use ai in showing that source since nearly all Google searches are now done through Co Pilot, but that goes for the same with nearly all the browsers I can think of.
Anyway, IMO this is a bit beside the point. The reason Australia bailed on the French had to do with what they considered to be the most strategic partnership. At that point they considered the US a more valuable ally than a European nation. "We want nuclear subs now" was meant to be the face-saving cover story.
Yes, I did. I just didn’t respond to much of your last post because most of it wasn’t relevant to the one question I asked you. I’m afraid it seems to me you’re engaging in goal-post moving.
When challenged on the question of whether French law prohibited selling nuclear subs to Australia, you said: “The Wikipedia article I cited said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.” (My emphasis)
I posted that I couldn’t find anywhere the article says that. But I also acknowledged the article is long and I could have missed it, so I asked you where the article says that the French didn’t offer nuclear submarines to Australia. You didn’t answer that question.
Then, in response to me, you said: “While Wikipedia made a statement that France had offered nuclear technology to Australia, I can find no other source that makes that statement.” (My emphasis again.) That’s the exact opposite of what you earlier claimed the Wikipedia article said.
Now you’re talking about converting nuclear propulsion to conventional propulsion, and you’re claiming that the Wikipedia article is either wrong (which earlier you said provided “a detailed explanation”) or contradicts itself or other Wikipedia articles.
But the only thing I asked was where the first Wikipedia article said what you claimed it said—that “the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.” I’m forced to conclude my initial impression was correct, and that it doesn’t say that.
Comments
The Wikipedia article I cited said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.
Copilot AI also gives this information
Up to now, all I can say I really know is that France has never offered nuclear technology to Brazil, India, or Australia. If the information above is true, they would have to change the law
(ETA Hidden text ai source output, DT)
But I did find this quote in the “Features: Pillar 1—Nuclear-powered submarines” section: That would appear to suggest France did offer nuclear submarines to Australia, and that Australia didn’t purchase them because the need to refuel couldn’t be met in Australia. This article from The Guardian, cited in support of the first sentence of what I quoted says nothing about inability of France to sell to Australia, suggesting instead that France was ready to sell.
I’m afraid that when I actually know something about a topic, I regularly find AI summaries to be wrong, often very wrong. Trust them at your own risk.
From your citation of the Wikipedia article:
Australia considered purchasing French nuclear submarines which use nuclear reactors fuelled by low-enriched uranium at less than 6%. However, French reactor designs have to be refuelled every ten years, and Australia does not have a civil nuclear capability with nuclear energy prohibited. In contrast, American and British designs power the submarines for the expected life of the submarines using nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium (HEU) at 93% enrichment.
And of course, we know Wikipedia articles are never wrong.
I asked you to provide the quote where the article says that.
Rather than provide the quote you said is in the article, you simply repeated what I quoted, and what I quoted doesn’t support what you said; to the contrary, what I quoted appears to contradict what you said.
@Gramps49 Please do not use ai for sourcing.
Doublethink, Admin
The point I was making was to your counter, where you said
While Wikipedia made a statement that France had offered nuclear technology to Australia, I can find no other source that makes that statement. This was based on two Guardian articles cited in the footnotes. But everything I find says quite the opposite. Someone is in error.
There is this one statement that seems to say the French Barracuda class was designed as a nuclear sub was being sold to the Australians as a conventional sub
Now, if the Australians originally wanted a nuclear sub, who required it to be conventional and why? (This shows the Wikipedia article contradicts itself.)
A bit later, in that same paragraph it says the Australians were planning on outfitting the sub with a Lockheed Martin combat system. I find that odd. Much like putting a Ford transmission in a Dodge pickup.
To your question: The reason why American and British subs use a 93% enrichment core in their reactor is so that it will last the life of the submarine. Yes, it necessitates some extra safeguards. I have had friends who have served on them, though. They did not give it much of a second thought.
The French do have a system that uses a 6% core. But it requires a ten-year refueling cycle which, in some ways is even more dangerous because of the potential for contamination when spent fuel rods are removed and new rods are inserted.
As far as I can find, it doesn’t say either of those things. What it actually says is: “Australia considered purchasing French nuclear submarines which use nuclear reactors fuelled by low-enriched uranium at less than 6%.” However, French reactor designs have to be refuelled every ten years, and Australia does not have a civil nuclear capability with nuclear energy prohibited.”
In other words, the article doesn’t actually say one way or the other whether France offered nuclear technology to Australia. That France did in fact do that can be inferred from the Wikipedia article, but the article doesn’t actually say it.
And that’s my point—the problem of citing articles as saying things they don’t actually say.
In the AUKUS article in Wikipedia. In the section on Background, Second Paragraph, third line-at the end, there is this comment
The design was based on the latest French nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Barracuda class, which required converting the nuclear propulsion to conventional propulsion
I pointed out that line appears to contradict the one paragraph about Australia considered the French Nuclear submarine, but decided against it.
My question is, if Australia originally wanted a nuclear attack capability, who required the French sub to be propelled by conventional technology?
Does not make sense.
Based on that Wikipedia article alone. Someone is in Ierror.
Looking at another Wikipedia article on the specific Shortfin Barracuda Submarine, in the discussion about what was offered to the Australians, there is this sentence:
That article indicates the French never did off a nuclear submarine to the Australians. They offered a conventional propelled variant based on the Barracuda sub.
Combining the two contradictory articles, the key is the conventional option was the only option the French could have offered to Australia because of certain legal requirements prohibiting the transport of the nuclear technology.
Now I know Doublethink jump all over me, but I did try to cite French laws prohibiting the export of such technology. It is kind of hard not to use ai in showing that source since nearly all Google searches are now done through Co Pilot, but that goes for the same with nearly all the browsers I can think of.
When challenged on the question of whether French law prohibited selling nuclear subs to Australia, you said: “The Wikipedia article I cited said the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.” (My emphasis)
I posted that I couldn’t find anywhere the article says that. But I also acknowledged the article is long and I could have missed it, so I asked you where the article says that the French didn’t offer nuclear submarines to Australia. You didn’t answer that question.
Then, in response to me, you said: “While Wikipedia made a statement that France had offered nuclear technology to Australia, I can find no other source that makes that statement.” (My emphasis again.) That’s the exact opposite of what you earlier claimed the Wikipedia article said.
Now you’re talking about converting nuclear propulsion to conventional propulsion, and you’re claiming that the Wikipedia article is either wrong (which earlier you said provided “a detailed explanation”) or contradicts itself or other Wikipedia articles.
But the only thing I asked was where the first Wikipedia article said what you claimed it said—that “the French did not offer nuclear submarines to Australia.” I’m forced to conclude my initial impression was correct, and that it doesn’t say that.