South Korea and Australia are pursuing nuclear-powered submarines at roughly the same historical moment, yet they are doing so with very different philosophical approaches.
My bet is different: by the time Australia finally gets its nuclear submarines, the strategic premise behind them may already be obsolete.
If fusion comes online by 2040 and energy becomes abundant rather than scarce, the strategic logic of warfare changes. States have historically fought to secure resources, sea lanes, fuel, territory and industrial depth. A post-scarcity energy system weakens that entire ontology.
In that world, the submarine is no longer the apex predator of maritime deterrence. It becomes a magnificent artefact of the hydrocarbon age: a whale built for a sea whose food chain has changed.
Australia may not lose the submarine race because it chose the wrong supplier. It may lose because it spent half a century preparing for yesterday’s energy order.
>My bet is, Australia will end up buying South Korean nuclear subs.
Same
At least it will be cheap!
My bet is different: by the time Australia finally gets its nuclear submarines, the strategic premise behind them may already be obsolete.
If fusion comes online by 2040 and energy becomes abundant rather than scarce, the strategic logic of warfare changes. States have historically fought to secure resources, sea lanes, fuel, territory and industrial depth. A post-scarcity energy system weakens that entire ontology.
In that world, the submarine is no longer the apex predator of maritime deterrence. It becomes a magnificent artefact of the hydrocarbon age: a whale built for a sea whose food chain has changed.
Australia may not lose the submarine race because it chose the wrong supplier. It may lose because it spent half a century preparing for yesterday’s energy order.
Sure. Could well be true