A most thorough response and some important points made and I appreciate your response. Thx.

But.

Supplying nuclear reactors or perhaps made in Britain and then fitted in Britain or Australia does for me contravene the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which states for ‘‘peaceful purposes only’’. Nuclear submarines are not by any stretch of the imagination for the purposes of peace unless you follow the doctrine of MAD. The use of nuclear weapons assures the destruction of the world therefore to use them is impossible therefore ‘peace’ is won. So all nukes are for peaceful purposes. An absurdity.

Therefore I would argue nuclear submarines — the reactors that power them — do break the NPT. Hence the reason for diesel submarines purchased from France.

As for the generic ‘protection of trade routes’ reason/rationalisation for increasing military presence by UK and Australia (USA is always there) in the Indo-Pacific, that, I do not buy. It is for me a lie.

Although the lie itself is reminiscent of the British Empire protecting its trade routes by invading and suppressing other countries around the globe. And we all know what the Empire enforced upon China. The military presence is pure atavistic colonial positioning and in UK’s case, pure nostalgia. But it is highly dangerous positioning and geopolitical manipulation.

It is a game but a highly dangerous game of big boy posturing by Biden, Johnson and Morrison. Nukes are not on the Aussie subs — yet — but nukes are around aplenty. That is the issue. Why keep intimidating and provoking China? Why make the region less safe? WW3 may not be desired but it could very easily happen by mistake or error. The more the military and navy fill the seas around Taiwan and China the more the chance of an unwanted escalation.

I firmly believe this only shows how impotent the West truly is as regards China.