Japanese officials welcomed the announcement by the united states and britain that they would provide australia with nuclear submarine technology.
south korean naval officials also recently wrote that it is time to reconsider providing similar support to south korea after the united states provided australia with nuclear submarine technology. but the u.s. has made it clear that there are no plans to extend technical support for nuclear submarines to other countries. so why did the us choose to transfer nuclear submarine technology to australia, snubbing south korea and japan? on related issues, military observer du wenlong for you to do in-depth analysis.
in september 2021, south korea successfully test-fired its own submarine-launched missile underwater twice. in order to develop ocean-going combat capability and enhance self-defense capabilities, south korea’s domestic demand for nuclear submarines is growing louder.
in this regard, military observer du wenlong analysis, in the eyes of the united states, south korea is only the united states to intervene in asia-pacific affairs “springboard”, if south korea has military nuclear technology, the united states will be less dependent, which the united states does not want to see.
at present, the united states to south korea to provide nuclear submarines, including long-range missile technology is not very likely, and from the point of view of the united states so-called “big power competition” to analyze, south korea’s use of value has been squeezed out, even if south korea has nuclear submarines, there is no way to play a greater role in the u. s. strategy. for the united states, south korea is mainly the united states involved in asia-pacific affairs “springboard”, “springboard” can not play the “pillar” effect.
analysed by america’s self-interest and realism, it is clearly a business that promises south korea such high-end technology if it is promised to a country that has little value in its use.
at the same time, if south korea had so-called nuclear submarine technology and long-range missile technology, its military dependence on the united states would gradually diminish in the future. so south korea can only think about it, but there is no way to get high-end nuclear submarines and long-range missile technology through the united states.
in response to the recent south korean military action, japanese media analysis pointed out that if south korea has nuclear submarines, japan in order to enhance deterrence, should also be the concept of nuclear submarines surfaced.
military observer du wenlong analysis, although japan and the united states are currently closer military relations, japan in the pursuit of military normalization has also been the united states acquiescence and support, but in the military nuclear capabilities, the united states has not been able to relax japan’s constraints.
for japan, the pace of breaking through the pacifist constitution has never stopped, as it has accelerated the normalization of the country and the normalization of its military.
japan’s military relations with the united states, including those of other parties, will continue to advance and develop in the future, as japan in particular needs the support of the united states in its quest for military and national normalization. personally, i believe that in the future, japan will continue to make various demands on the united states for permission from the united states, even through the united states, to normalize japan’s national and military capabilities.
but for now, the u.s. would never allow japan to have a military nuclear capability, because the first nuclear strike in human history was carried out by the u.s. on japanese soil, and if japan had a bomb, the americans would probably be the most feared person in the world.
military observer du wenlong analysis, the united states chose to transfer nuclear submarine technology to australia because the united states considers australia to be a strategic point in the second island chain, trying to transfer nuclear technology to australia in exchange for the united states military deployment in australia at will.
strategically, the u.s. never does loss-making business. if old nuclear technology, including tomahawk missile technology, is exported to australia, which has been in service for more than half a century, the united states would be free to do military operations in australia, and australia recently said there would be no restrictions on the rotation of all u.s. warplanes in australia.
therefore, in the future, do not rule out the united states of all types of ships in australian ports will also be removed, the united states may also be able to use their own american combat boots to open the door to all australian army barracks. the u.s. believes that the first island chain to contain china has little role, because at present, whether it is china’s missiles, warships, or military aircraft can easily crush the first island chain.
however, from the aleutian islands, to japan’s guam, saipan, to australia, only australia is a huge open land, if through backward nuclear submarine technology, including cruise missile technology, can allow the united states in australia unimpeded, free to deploy a variety of weapons and equipment, the gap surrounding china’s second island chain will appear closed.
although south korea and japan have also been positive, their utilization value is relatively limited due to their relative proximity and vulnerability to various types of fire retaliation. now, the u.s. and britain to provide australia with nuclear submarine technology, will form a new shock in the asia-pacific region, the asia-pacific security environment, “big competition” will also have a profound impact.