Brazil has been working on their nuclear submarine project for more than a decade. It has been on and off again several times. I don't know if any new design is in the works, but the original concept was a Type 212 hull with a nuclear powerplant. That's right, just a SSK hull with a nuclear plant.
What connection do you see between a nuclear-powered submarine and a nuclear-armed submarine?
How many non-nuclear weapon states have nuclear power subs?What connection do you see between a nuclear-powered submarine and a nuclear-armed submarine?
Irrelevant. Most of the nuclear-powered subs around the world are conventionally-armed, & there have been nuclear-armed but conventionally-powered subs. There is no logical link between the power source & armament.
I dont agree with your rationale. There is no precedence where non-nuclear weapon states build nuclear powered subs. Why do think more non-nuclear weapon states haven't opt for nuclear subs?
There is no precedent, but so what? There was no precedent for the first nuclear-powered sub, there was no precedent for the first nuclear-armed sub. Precedent isn't a valid argument, or a reason, on its own. Consider why something is being done, & why something might be done. Brazils nuclear weapons programme was under the military dictatorship, & was ended as soon as democracy was restored. Since then, Brazil has signed the NPT, & wrote renunciation of nuclear weapons into its constitution 20 years ago.
It might not be beneficial for a non nuclear weapon state to use a nuclear powered sub armed with conventional weapons hence no other non nuclear weapon states are building nuclear powered subs.
I am aware of the reasons/history of Brazil past attempt to get nuclear weapons. I mentioned it to highlight the point that they have the technology base to build nuclear weapons in short period of time.
Canada had a project to acquire nuclear-powered subs once, but canned it. The justification was to enable patrols in the Canadian high arctic all year round. Look for reasons: what non-nuclear state has the perceived need for the capabilities that nuclear power gives to subs, & does not have political, technical or financial barriers to acquiring SSNs? None, at the moment. Japan, for example, could use them, has the technology to build them, but can't for political reasons. There are different sets of circumstances for different countries, not the general rule you think you see.
I dont want to go off track. I will restate my main point,there is no precedent of a non-nuclear weapon state building a nuclear powered subs. There are a number of non nuclear weapons states with the technology base in place and having the financial resource to build nuclear powered subs but they choose not go down that path. Seems like there is not much of a benefit of having a nuclear powered sub armed with conventional weapons.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't most SSN's nuclear powered but not nuclear armed, now I agree that having a SSBN without nuclear weapons would be an unusal step but not an attack boat.
Regarding Brazil's pursuit of nuclear powered sub which this debate is about,there hasn't been a case of a non nuclear weapon state building nuclear powered sub in 50 plus years since the inception of nuclear powered submarines. It seems a little odd that a country which had a covert nuclear weapons program in past is embarking on building a nuclear powered sub to arm it conventionally.
I agree the Brazil SSN effort is a time and money sink. It won' t be easy to kill and should continue to survive like the USA V-22 program and India's LCA.
Perhaps the benefits don't justify building nuclear power Subs(for non nuclear weapon states) and arming it with conventional weapons which is why it hasn't been done in 50 plus years. There are quite a few countries with just as good of a technology base and are/were in better financial position than Brazil is yet they have choosen not to go down that path.
see above.
Modern SSKs are quite capable of doing the job. Australia and Japan are good examples.
And as I've said, each has different circumstances. E.g. Germany & Italy have no perceived need for long-range, long-endurance submarines, & Japan has an absolute political barrier to nuclear-powered ships. You keep repeating the same line, & ignoring all counter-arguments. What other non-nuclear states with greater financial resources & technology base than Brazil are there? The only candidates are Canada (considered & decided against for political & financial reasons), Spain, S. Korea & Australia (as Canada) - and none of these actually has a bigger real GDP.
Already addressed. See above. Japan - a political choice, not military, which is why Japan has built the worlds biggest, longest-range SSKs. Without that political bar, the JMSDF would probably have built SSNs decades ago.