Why is China trying to stop Australia from getting nuclear powered subs? Doesn’t seem fair seeing as China itself has them.

为什么中国不希望澳大利亚拥有核动力潜艇？中国自己就有核潜艇，这么干不公平吧

以下是Quora网友的评论：

En Li

Author has 1.2K answers and 6.4M answer viewsThu

Are you certain that this is a matter which is all about “fairness”.

In the case that you had been sincerely at a loss, enter this in your notebook please:

This is something completely about nothing but international rule, norm, law and order!

Why? Because of this treaty:

你确定这是“公平不公平”的问题吗？

如果你真的不知道，请把这句话记在你的笔记本上:

这完全是一个关于国际规则、规范、法律和秩序的问题!

为什么？因为国际社会存在着一个条约：

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

不扩散核武器条约（NPT）

This is the paramount paragraph of this treaty which was signed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970:

“The NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”

该条约于1968年签署并于1970年生效，其中最重要的一段内容是:

“《不扩散核武器条约》中，无核武器国家同意永远不拥有核武器，作为交换，《不扩散核武器条约》中的核武器拥有国同意分享和平利用核技术的好处，并为最终消除其核武库而努力。”

And, this is notable too:

“In February 1970 Australia signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), committing not to acquire nuclear weapons, and to adhere to strong non-proliferation obligations. Since then, Australia has been one of the treaty's strongest supporters.

还有一点也值得注意:

1970年2月，澳大利亚签署了《不扩散核武器条约》，承诺不拥有核武器，并严格遵守不扩散核武器义务。从那以后，澳大利亚一直是该条约最坚定的支持者之一。

“In 1995, Australia and other signatories collectively succeeded in ensuring the Treaty was extended indefinitely.”

“After Australia signed the treaty in 1970 and ratified it in 1973, all Australian governments have since regarded it as a fundamental plank of Australian foreign and defence policy.”

Now, that is exactly why the so-called AUKUS deal constitutes a flagrant violation of the NPT regime. Take a look please:

1995年，澳大利亚和其他签署国集体承诺无限期延长该《条约》。

自1970年澳大利亚签署该条约并于1973年批准后，历届澳大利亚政府都将其视为澳大利亚外交和国防政策的基本准则。

现在，这正是为什么所谓的《海军核动力信息交换协议》（AUKUS）是对《不扩散条约》制度的公然违背。请看一下:

“The Aukus nuclear-powered submarines collaboration is a serious violation of the object and purpose of the NPT, sets a dangerous precedent for the illegal transfer of weapons-grade nuclear materials from nuclear-weapon states to a non-nuclear-weapon state, and thus constitutes a blatant act of nuclear proliferation.”

In the face of such a wanton infringement of international law, China took it upon itself to initiate a legitimate response to it.

Through “thwarting” that crooked proposal, China proved itself to be the world’s champion against any attempt at violating the norms of international law and undermining the rule-based international order.

“美英澳核动力潜艇合作严重违背了《不扩散核武器条约》的目标和宗旨，为核武器国家向无核武器国家非法转移武器级核材料树立了危险的先例，从而构成了公然的核扩散行为。”

面对这种肆意践踏国际法的行为，中国主动作出了正当的回应。

通过“挫败”这种歪理邪说，中国证明了自己是反对任何违反国际法准则、破坏以规则为基础的国际秩序的世界捍卫者。

Jay Snead

retired researcher, amateur philosopherAuthor has 8K answers and 33.9M answer viewsOct 3

What does fair have to do with it? China opposes Australia getting nuclear submarines because China is Australia’s main potential enemy in the Southwest Pacific.

After the news of the submarine deal, China responded with an unprecedented wave of trade restrictions that froze many categories of Australian exports, rapidly decoupling economic ties. But if China hoped to punish Australia for its defiance with economic pain—and send a warning to other countries not to oppose China—it has failed on both accounts. The impacts on Australia have so far been surprisingly minimal.

这和公平有什么关系？中国反对澳大利亚获得核潜艇，是因为中国是澳大利亚在西南太平洋的主要潜在对手。

在潜艇交易的消息传出后，中国以一波前所未有的贸易限制措施作为回应，冻结了澳大利亚许多商品类别的出口，使两国经济关系迅速脱钩。但是，如果中国希望用经济上的痛苦来惩罚澳大利亚的公然挑衅，警告其他国家不要跟中国对着干，那么在这两个方面都失败了。到目前为止，这些措施对澳大利亚的影响微乎其微。

Andrew Holtz

So they are truly scared by us having Six Nuclear Powered Conventionally weaponed Subs.

Compared to their fleet of Diesel and Nuclear Submarines, 3 Aircraft Carriers and Sundry other Surface Vessels, which far exceed Australia’s Navy.

Just a Tad hypocritical dont you think

他们真的害怕我们拥有六艘核动力常规潜艇。

他们的柴油潜艇、核潜艇、3艘航空母舰和其他各种水面舰艇组成的舰队，远远超过澳大利亚海军。

有点虚伪，你不觉得吗？

Leonard Pelling

Author has 245 answers and 8.6K answer viewsOct 3

Who said the Chinese were trying anything .? If the Chinese wanted to cripple Australia financially , economically , they wouldn’t be our largest trading partner . Enough of the Western negativity .

谁说中国人在密谋什么了？如果中国人想在金融和经济上削弱澳大利亚，中国绝对不会是我们最大的贸易伙伴。我真是受够了西方人的阴暗心理。

Ryan Isaacs

certified AustralianUpvoted by Matt Lo, lives in Australia (2003-present)Author has 1.1K answers and 2.5M answer views4y

Can China invade Australia?

Obviously.

China could invade any country with the exception of the US (and possibly Russia) with very little effort.

中国有能力入侵澳大利亚吗？答案很明显。

中国可以毫不费力地入侵任何国家，除了美国(也许还有俄罗斯)。

What surprises me is the number of people on here saying that China would never do such a thing because the US would come to Australia’s aid. This may be hard for some of you to hear, but the US does not care about Australia. The Americans and Australians are close allies, but only because Australia does everything the Americans want and asks very little in return. Once that changes and Australia is asking for the US to come in and go to war with their largest geopolitical, economic, and military rival, things will not be so rosy.

让我惊讶的是很多人发帖说中国绝不会这么做，因为美国会支援澳大利亚。也许事实会让你们难以接受，但美国并不在意澳大利亚。美国人和澳大利亚人是亲密的盟友没错，但这也只是因为澳大利亚对美国人言听计从，却很少要求回报。一旦澳大利亚要求美国插手，帮助澳大利亚与最大的地缘政治、经济和军事对手开战，就没那么乐观了。

Having said that, China would not invade Australia.

话虽如此，中国不会入侵澳大利亚。

First, there are the economic reasons. I’m not saying that Australia is an indispensable trade partner, but invading a country with a decent international reputation would hurt China’s brand a little. Sanctions, lack of trust, that sort of thing.

More importantly, China does not want to rule the world. Despite US rhetoric and the history being projected upon it, China does not seek to become an imperial power. China is quite happy doing what it is doing.

首先是经济原因。并不是因为澳大利亚是不可或缺的贸易伙伴，但入侵一个拥有良好国际声誉的国家会有损中国的形象，导致制裁，信任流失等后果。

更重要的是，中国并不想统治世界。尽管美国总这么说，虽然中国经历过一段不堪的历史，但中国并不想变成帝国主义国家。中国对现状很满足。

Frank Morrison

Studied at Presentation Brothers College, CorkAuthor has 144 answers and 151.3K answer views5y

Related

Why is China trying to bully Australia?

It isn't. Strange question.

Australia and China get on just fine.

中国没有欺负澳大利亚。好奇怪的问题。

澳大利亚和中国挺好的，别咸操萝卜淡操心了。

Philip Yap

Former Construction Manager (2008–2009)Author has 1.9K answers and 2M answer views1y

Related

Does China have nuclear rockets targeting Australia?

No, not necessary for a militarily weak and tiny country like Australia at this time.

It will be waste of resources and manhour to target such a weak and negligible target

In future if US start installing nuclear missiles in Australia than China will need to think of ways to to protect against them and neutralise them.

没有，对澳大利亚这样一个军事力量薄弱的小国来说，中国没有必要这么做。

专门对付这样一个弱小的、微不足道的目标，简直是在浪费资源和人力。

如果未来美国真的要在澳大利亚部署核导弹，中国就必须想办法采取防御措施，说服澳大利亚保持中立。

Eric Wang

Lives in California (1991–present)Author has 399 answers and 33K answer viewsOct 3

China isn’t trying anything. It’s just another Australian hoax. Would it make any difference if China had tried? I guess even idiots can see the answer is a resounding no.

中国啥也没干好么。澳大利亚又在骗人了。无论中国想不想动手，结果会有什么不同么？笨蛋也知道答案：不会。

Masao Miwa

Political and History gadflyAuthor has 16.1K answers and 18.5M answer views3y

Is China trying to turn itself into a naval power?

Brookings has an interesting analysis, but the flaw is that China is focused on the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the US is focused on the entire globe, both the Pacific and Atlantic. I doubt the US would put it’s the whole fleet in the Pacific as Brookings seems to equate. It also intimates that the US has a lots of allies, which is true, but the EU doesn’t have much of a fleet, nor others except Japan. But Brookings fails to add in Russia to China’s side, which is a possiblity. Russia and China almost double the number of subs vs the US. In a future war, my opinion is, submarines are more valuable than aircraft carriers.

布鲁金斯学会有一个有趣的分析，但中国关注的是太平洋和印度洋，美国关注的是全球，包括太平洋和大西洋。我怀疑美国会不会像布鲁金斯研究所认为的那样，把整个舰队部署到太平洋上。分析还称美国有很多盟友，这一点是真的，但欧盟的舰队不多，除了日本，其他国家都没有。布鲁金斯没有把俄罗斯划入中国这一边，但这其实是很有可能的。俄罗斯和中国的潜艇数量加在一起，几乎是美国的两倍。我认为，在未来的战争中潜艇比航母更有价值。

David Atwell

M.A. in History and Political Science, University of Sydney (Graduated 1997)Author has 1.4K answers and 13.8M answer views9mo

Given that Australia is in the process of buying several nuclear submarines from America, do they have any intentions to acquire America's Trident II nuclear weapons deterrent?

At the moment all Australia has done is cancel its contract with the French to build 12 Attack class SSKs:

Why the French were awarded this contract is still a mystery to this day as the then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that the Japanese Soryu class SSK was given favoured status as the tender was reaching its conclusion:

目前澳大利亚所做的就是终止与法国签订的12艘攻击级潜艇的采购合同：

为什么法国能拿下这份合同至今仍是一个谜，当时的澳大利亚总理托尼·阿博特宣布，在招标即将结束时日本苍龙级潜艇更有优势：

But the French got the contract anyway and promptly stuffed it up. Ignore all of the howls of protest from French President Macron and company, the French managed to double the price of the contract, from around $45 billion to $90 billion, whilst they were running five years behind schedule and without any clue as to when the first boat may have been commissioned. That was simply unacceptable regardless who is involved.

但法国人还是拿到了合同。在法国总统马克龙和他的伙伴们的抗议中，法国成功地把合同总金额翻了一番，从450亿美元左右增加到900亿美元，但进度却比计划推迟了5年，而且没有迹象表明何时能交付第一艘潜艇。这对谁来说都是不可接受的。

As a consequence Australia contacted its traditional military partners, the British and the Americans, and formed the AUKUS alliance so they could get access to nuclear propulsion technology in order to power an Australian SSN. And fundamentally that’s it.

Furthermore Australia is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which forbids Australia to develop, purchase, or deploy nuclear weapons. So Australia can’t even have a small gravity nuclear bomb, let alone a Trident II, as it’d be illegal and major international repercussions would take place.

因此，澳大利亚跟传统军事伙伴英国和美国接触，并组成了AUKUS联盟，这样他们就可以获得核推进技术，为澳大利亚的潜艇提供动力。前因后果差不多就是这样。

此外，澳大利亚签订过《不扩散核武器条约》，禁止澳大利亚研发、购买或部署核武器。所以澳大利亚连小型重力核弹都不可以拥有，更不用说三叉戟II了，因为这是违反条约规定的，会引起重大的国际反响。

Importantly this is currently where Australia is:

It has cancelled its submarine contract with France.

It has negotiated access to American and British nuclear power propulsion technology.

It has started a research project to determine what kind of SSN design is suitable for Australia.

澳大利亚目前的现状如下：

它已经取消了跟法国签订的潜艇合同。

它通过谈判获得了美国和英国的核能推进技术。

它已经开始进行项目研究来确定适合澳大利亚的潜艇设计。

And that’s it. It hasn’t made any actual design plans, started a new tender competition, or placed any orders. Furthermore don’t be surprised if all this SSN business is quietly forgotten, in 18 months time, when the research project has finished its study and reports its findings to the government.

I say this because, unlike the UK and US, Australia has no nuclear infrastructure to support a nuclear powered submarine. All that Australia has is a small nuclear research reactor in the outer suburbs of Sydney…

… and several uranium mines scattered around the country.

目前情况就是这样。澳大利亚还没有敲定设计计划，没有启动新的竞标活动，也没有签订任何订单。如果在18个月后，项目研究小组完成研究成果并向政府呈上报告时，潜艇一事又变得悄无声息了，也不用大惊小怪。

我这么说是因为，跟英国和美国不同，澳大利亚还没有能供应核动力潜艇的核基础设施。澳大利亚只有一个位于悉尼远郊的小型核研究反应堆。

以及散布在全国各地的几座铀矿。