Few thoughts on AUCUS:

1) For the 1st time since the US helped the Brits in nuclear sub tech beginning in late 1950s, US has made a decision to share it's nuc propulsion tech with any other state.
2) Rickover agreed to help Brits bcz of his cultural affinities; but declined to help Even other NATO members such as Italy and Netherlands. Nonproliferation norms did the rest.
3) US decision has finally opened the nuclear military tech market which otherwise gave advantage to states such as Russia and France. There were no other vendors available. What is being offered to a treaty partner today, may be offered to a strategic partner tomorrow.
4) Complicates China's calculus. PLAN will have to confront more muscular navies in the nbd but if it goes on to assert it's dominance, will also have to take into account the chances of accidental and inadvertent escalation. Costs of naval dominance will increase.
5) What does it mean for India. India's nuke sub program may have been assisted by Russia, but the original motivation was always the Nautilus. Bhabha had approached Glenn Seaborg in 1965 for assistance. Rickover and NPT scuttled it.
6) sarabhai again approached in 1967. Cooperation on plutonium recycling with Oregon national labs and USAEC even agreed to study parametric analysis on naval nuclear propulsion by BARC but then again cooperation moved to a dead end.
7) not without reason, the indian nuclear naval reactor program was called plutonium recycling project until 1984, when soviets chipped in and the formation of ATV program. But only provided negative guidance. Things changed in late 1990s when India got a lot of help.
8) Credit should go to Moscow where it is due. Russian help came at when India was feeling the pressure of nonproliferation norms the most. Also, no one would have helped India build a sub for nuclear weapons delivery (WHICH WAS NOT THE ORG MANDATE IN ANY CASE)
9) it is also true that indians have not been very happy with the current naval reactors, based on Russian help. Not without reason, they have eyed French Barracudas for their attack nuclear sub program.
10) US opening up will change the market. Even if nothing transpires, the shadow of American assistance will play well for India in negotiations with both Paris and Moscow.
11) India and US have been talking about the next big thing since the 2008 nuclear deal. Naval nuclear military tech could be it. Both for submarines and aircraft carriers.
12) unlike other US allies and partners, India is already a nuclear weapons power. In my understanding, if India can privately assure to keep it's attack sub and ssbn program separate, it will help the Americans to offer assistance.
13) in any case, new Delhi will not allow anyone to interfere with the ssbn program. And it has already developed all indigenous technologies to pursue one. In the long run, no one can also stop diffusion of technology from one program to another. So India shd play along.
14) even if India has to accept iaea safeguards for attack nuke sub, shouldn't be very concerning. Just like the nuclear deal of 2008, will lower the burden on India's indigenous uranium enrichment capabilities to fuel it's subs.
15) the tech related to ssn and ssbns have different requirements. The Navy understands that. Therefore, it was looking at the French. Why not try the Americans too. No harm in shopping around.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Yogesh Joshi

Yogesh Joshi Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Yogeshjoshidec1

20 Sep
I have always admired Sandeep Unnithan work but I have some major issues with this article:
1) The central argument is that US will never part with sophisticated nuclear sub tech (NST), because they have never done so in the past. They just decided otherwise. confirmation bias?
2)Tweak1: Nevertheless, they will never do so for India. The same argument was prevalent for civilian nuclear cooperation before the Indo-US nuclear deal. We got there eventually. Inter. politics often springs surprises for naysayers. Just wait for the right condtns & motivations
Read 16 tweets
18 Sep
Why is Paris so angry about AUKUS?

Yes, losing the Australian deal and few billion dollar sucks but there are bigger worries:
1) US has not opened up the sub market 2) it may also translate to arms transfer across military technologies. 3) signaled to the rest of the world that it is not bound by yesteryears commitments to norms and vague notions of regional stability.
2) Market run by a few monopoly vendors now faces competition from a player which has both the tech and money but was hamstrung by its normative commitments. Not a great day for market leaders.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!