Do You Support Australia's Submarine Policy?

GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 15:41

I won't bother posting any links to media reports about the Australian governments recent announcement regarding its submarine policy and related purchase agreements, so as to not taint the discussion with one media slant vs another.

My view - I with Paul Keating on this and think that this is a really bad decision on any number of fronts.

  • The costs are huge. I know we are talking decades away, but that just means we are only really guessing what the actual costs will be. As well as somehow finding the money for this, it likely means that funding for other things is likely to be detrimentally impacted (e.g. social housing, health, education, environment, etc.)

  • Do we actually need submarines? Most dialogue is around the "threat" from China, but I can't really think of any reason why China would engage in a war with Australia, or with our closest neighbours. I've seen reports that suggest China probably won't even push to take over Taiwan, given the perceived global effects of doing that.

  • As we wait decades for the submarines to be built and delivered, we are apparently to host US nuclear submarines as a stop-gap measure. I'm pretty sure that is against our nuclear-free Pacific treaty obligations and, if you believe China would be aggressive in the future, make us a nuclear target.

  • We will apparently need to deal with nuclear waste in the future.

Poll Options

  • 411
    I'm all for it
  • 701
    I'm against it
  • 55
    I don't care
Financial

Comments

          • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 13:45
            +2

            @GG57: Thats like saying we dont need police or hospitals.

            Better to be safe than sorry, just look Ukraine.

            • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 13:50
              +3

              @CowFrogHorse: It's nothing like that. We know we need police and hospitals (and a host of other things that our developed country is lucky enough to be able to afford).
              But to spend this amount of money on a few submarines, that won't be here for a number of years, seems a waste of money. We won't have any better defence capabilities, in comparison to the perceived threat of China, than we do now as China can probably build a higher number of submarines in the same time frame. It's just feeding the global military machine / industry.

              • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 13:57
                +1

                @GG57: GG57: But to spend this amount of money on a few submarines, that won't be here for a number of years, seems a waste of money

                cow: ???

                Thats like saying dont build a hospital because its not ready from day one.

                Of course we have to wait but its an investment in our future protection.

                ~

                GG57: than we do now as China can probably build a higher number of submarines in the same time frame

                cow: Who are you to say MORE of this sub is better than LESS of some better sub ?

                You dont have military qualifications or history, neither do I, so i fail to see why you think you know better than those who have served our country for a long time and are giving this advice.

          • Protractor on 17/03/2023 - 09:42
            +2

            @GG57: China basically sponsors all the mega billionaires like Twiggy,Gina and Clive and THEN still pays a premium price on the product. The US on the other hand has been deforesting for bauxite and has (in 60 years) not even properly rehabbed and handed back a single % share of the countries gutted forests they bulldozed.
            There must be something in the water in America. It turned Dutton into a snivelling lick-spittle and now Albo is B grade his stunt double. Americas industry is protected even under our FTAs

          • Protractor on 22/03/2023 - 19:35
            +1

            @GG57: and as Samoa have rightly pointed out, it's not just China lining pockets & build stuff, to influence future decisions and processes. AUKUS is exactly the same in this case.

            https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-22/prime-minister-samoa-…

            Reciprocity is one thing, but 'because' of the expectations when it comes to a long term ally, even in massively changed scenarios, we are expected to respond in a particular way in the future when asked. Dutton said it implicitly. (paraphrase) "In any war in Taiwan involving the USA , he could not imagine a situation where Australia would NOT be involved". And AUKUS is the exclamation mark to that.
            Samoa is dropping hints that others are circling , and it's more likely to be us or the USA.
            Darwin has Chinese and US military interests. Locals were never involved in either decision.
            America needs and gets, a huge amount of our resources.Including gas. How's that looking?
            We might be rich in resources but we are poor in self governance and protecting our citizens quality of life over others. Clearly the FIRB is a joke if you look at who owns, how much of what, and what disappears over the horizon.

        • xdigger on 21/03/2023 - 11:33

          Ironic statement given AUKUS is now raiding Australia's riches to the tune of $368b to fund their war-based economies, not unlike good ol' colonial days.

      • lostgoat on 16/03/2023 - 14:08

        As I said, I just don't see why China (as an example) would want to physically invade Australia.

        Are you kidding ? Only the highest grade iron ore deposits that are closest to them . No US insurance I'd be very concerned .

        • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 14:56
          +3

          Don't they just buy it?
          Would an invasion really be worth that much to them for that iron ore?

          • ThithLord on 16/03/2023 - 17:19
            +4

            @GG57: C'mon you don't envision China launching the world's largest armada across 8000km to somehow invade a continent on a different hemisphere?!

      • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:34
        +8

        I think Xi Jinping is a lot more clever than Putin.

        • Minimum chips on 15/03/2023 - 21:27
          +3

          You know, I thought so too but his appointment of relatively inexperienced loyalists to all the top cabinet jobs feels a bit like the same kind of hubris as Putin and Trump.

        • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 14:17

          What proof do you have ?

          Theres a big difference bewteen thinking and KNOWING…

          • [Deactivated] on 17/03/2023 - 12:47
            +1

            @CowFrogHorse: What is your point? This is a forum discussion. You seem to be more interested in winning arguments than sharing information.

      • Cho0028 on 15/03/2023 - 16:37
        +5

        If the Americans were going to setup a proxy it wouldn't be Australia. It would use Taiwan. Taiwan is ripe for a proxy war at some stage and they pay top dollar for anything the Americans are willing to give.

        • EightImmortals on 15/03/2023 - 17:33
          +2

          Fair point.
          Maybe we are the fallback position.

        • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 11:13
          +3

          I don't think so - the Taiwanese military is very weak - Yank additions aside. It'd certainly not be much of a proxy war as that by definition is you fighting through another 3rd party - whereas the US would have to be involved almost immediately if Taiwan was to have any chance at all.

          The advantage Taiwan has is it's an island and it's got very difficult & challenging terrain which gives a massive advantage to the defender. Apparently they've made massive bombproof bunkers their into these mountains etc - but I could see the Chinese overwhelming them with non-stop waves of killer drones etc.

          Don't underrate how intelligent Putin is - if the Russian armed forces hadnt been stopped by their own internal issues early in the conflict we might at best be looking at a rump state of Ukraine divided across the Dnieper river - at best. I think there's definitely personal health issues with him which made him act more impulsively and also post 2014 mixed messages from the West which made him feel his aggression would not be punished.

          Jinping knows China can afford to bide it's time - and ironically it'll now have a battered and humbled Russia to ally itse;f with - which is truly worst case scenario for everyone. Sadly they're both very intelligent but just playing different games on very different difficulty settings.

          • Chandler on 16/03/2023 - 13:48
            +1

            @Daniel Plainview:

            but I could see the Chinese overwhelming them with non-stop waves of killer drones etc

            Don't even need killer drones - China has the population to just steamroll Taiwan with bodies. Does Taiwan have 21 billion bullets?

            • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2023 - 19:18

              @Chandler: A small island off the coast of China. All China needs to do is surround it with their navy for a couple of months and Taiwan will agree to cede any claims to sovereignty.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 22:17
      -1

      Now rethink the whole “US protects us” in case Trump wins next term. We need our own nukes.

    • gromit on 15/03/2023 - 22:29
      +5

      US military budget is about 1 trillion a year not trillions. Which given there relative size to us makes our spend on just subs totally insane.

      • moar bargains on 16/03/2023 - 23:31

        Yeah but this spend is over about 40 years. That equates to about $350 per (current) person per year for the subs. The US military budget next year will be in the order of $800B, or about $2.5k per capita for that year.

        • gromit on 17/03/2023 - 07:28
          +5

          well firstly no way in hell do we want to approach the US level of spend per year, it is unsustainable and the US has to massive shrink it or they are headed for collapse, their budget deficit is heading towards financial meltdown in the next 5-10 years if they don't change. secondly it is 30 years so that is $500 a person, 3rdly that is ONLY for subs. it pushes our spend into insanely unaffordable territory like the US's. We are already 8th in the world in military spend per capita BEFORE heaping this on top.

    • CalmLemons on 16/03/2023 - 00:22
      +13

      The US actually doesn't protect us.

      Please name one enemy who in the last 20 years has tried to invade Australia - because it would be literally a billion dollar logistical nightmare - same reason why China would be unlikely to invade Taiwan, a literal natural fortress surrounded by mountains and ocean. This is also the same reason why the US has 900 bases globally.

      The US dominates the world, politically, economically, you name it. To protect that, you need a huge military might.

      We are literally funding purchasing second hand equipment they will be discarding anyway.
      The submarines are like a pay for protection deal.

      When China stopped buying some exports from us, the US farmers took all that business.
      Now we're protecting 40% of our exports with china with expensive submarines against the treat of china.

      There is no logic here.

      The papers were litereally plastics with articles promoting the AUKUS deal based on very little reasoning as to the genuine threat - as any medium tier military strategist would know invading Australia would be a complete nightmare for any invading force.

      • AustriaBargain on 16/03/2023 - 00:37
        +5

        The US has the bomb, though even without it they would be protecting us. We can sit out here and live gay and fancy-free precisely because the US is our best bud. It's why no one ever stood up to Draco in Harry Potter, because his two best friends were the biggest guys in his grade who acted like his free bodyguard. In caveman times the US would be the one with the big stick who lets us live our best cave-lives.

      • Nedward on 16/03/2023 - 11:16
        +2

        "Name one enemy who has tried to invade Australia" Do you seriously think this has nothing to do with the fact that the biggest military superpower is supporting our military defence?

        • bowdo on 16/03/2023 - 17:10
          +2

          Getting rid of this useless rottweiler, had him for years and nobody has tried to jump the fence even once!

        • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 19:55

          Exactly.

          The government shouldnt waste money on brain surgeons, im going to guess you have never had brain cancer.

          Same goes for fire stations, why bother with hundreds of them in Sydney, when there are thousands of buildings. Clearly fires never happen.

      • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 11:23
        +2

        It's a bit silly to use 20yrs as the 'standard' for if you haven't been invaded in that time it's not something you can worry about. As 95% of the countries on Earth would meet that threshhold.

        I agree the sub deal is poor - very poor in fact. But your rationales and points are a bit of a dogs breakfast.

        I'm unsure why all you armchair generals are fixated on a 'boots on the ground' invasion scenario. Realistically military threats to Australia come in many more ways than just this e.g at standoff distance smashing critical infrastructure to neuter your foe via cyber attacks, cruise missiles from sea and carrier launched air, subs etc.

        This is OzB so at the end of the day we all appreciate the concept of value - alas this deal is the complete opposite of this - paying through the nose and then some for a very limited scope product that still only does a very small range of functions.

        The disaster on top of this is its already been flagged that spending to the Army and AF will be cut to cover these costs - and thats exactly where we needed to be spending more to provide conventional threat deterrance - not to mention any other non-China defense threats.

        We're the poor kid in class who blows his households entire budget to get a pair of the fancy shoes his Rich mate has an entire cupboard full of.

        • Prosp24 on 16/03/2023 - 11:55
          +5

          More like the poor kid who blows his entire household budget to buy an older used pair of shoes from the rich kid at a ridiculous price.

        • CalmLemons on 16/03/2023 - 12:44
          +4

          I agree, not a good value deal.

          It's China, they're strategic. They're not going to send cruise missiles our way, serves no purpose.

          They're going to go along the route of not fighting is the best way to win a war - which is one of the primary rules the US also follows.

          We've already seen it with China's economic cooercion. It's not really war, as all nations do it, like the US with trade sanctions - but it just highlights how these subs aren't the best option.

          But once again, it's all just rhetoric and hoo ha. While all this is going on, China government owned steel companies are signing up billion dollar contracts with Australia.

          All this news coverage is just shitposting for the general populace to focus on an imaginery enermy - just as it always has been. Just as Mao started the cultural revolution to fight the 'imperialists', just as Putin is fighting the 'nazis' in Ukraine, just as we're now fighting the boogie man with our new submarines that are purely protection money and now the government is just trying to justify it with the public by finding an enemy.

    • Creamsoda on 16/03/2023 - 00:55
      +15

      USA: You need to pay us protection money for your freedom
      AUS: Who's the threat?
      USA: We will create one for you

      • AustriaBargain on 16/03/2023 - 00:58
        +7

        If the US vanished overnight, entire country replaced with open ocean, all their weapons systems in NATO countries vanish into puff of smoke, all carriers and subs gone, you don't think Australia would face any threats?

        • gromit on 16/03/2023 - 08:13
          +4

          so basically your argument is if half the world disappeared overnight we would be at risk. newsflash, if half the world disappeared overnight it wouldn't matter how many subs we had.

          • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2023 - 08:38
            +7

            @gromit: The point is Australia will never even be threatened because of its relationship with the USA.

            • gromit on 16/03/2023 - 08:54
              +6

              @[Deactivated]: As has been pointed out the US has a history of abandoning its "friends" as soon as that relationship becomes inconvenient or not profitable for them. Reallistically our relationship with the US is exactly why we are threatened. regardless either we have a great relationship with the US and hence don't need the subs or we have a bad relationship with them and need to not antagonise others in which case we don't need nuclear subs.

              • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2023 - 08:56
                +2

                @gromit: There is a third option - our great relationship with the US requires us to buy the subs. We aren't exactly equal partners.

                • gromit on 16/03/2023 - 08:56
                  +8

                  @[Deactivated]: then it isn't a great relationship. reality is the US has been screwing us for years with China, we act as the barking dog and get trade restrictions, which US then steps in and plays hard ball with them to take the business we just lost.

        • Sxio on 16/03/2023 - 12:25
          +3

          Do you? From who?

          Noam Chomsky once said the greatest threat to world peace was the US. And I guess one of the triumph's of their propaganda is that for so long we all thought of them as the world's protectors.

          • AustriaBargain on 16/03/2023 - 13:14
            -1

            @Sxio: Noam Chomsky had the freedom to say that because he was protected by the world’s largest fleet of nuclear attack subs.

    • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 08:46
      +8

      Australia enjoys protection from who exactly?
      All I see is Australia being dragged into conflicts with bad men in caves for the last 20 + years.

      WeAPoNs Of MaSs DeStRUcTioN

      • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 13:43
        -3

        Yeh why build hospitals or jails lets pretend everyone is nice and nobody has car accidents.

        The world is full of arseholes, ask Ukraine

    • frewer on 16/03/2023 - 09:57
      +1

      But but ser Progress in detection tech could render submarines useless by the 2050s. Would you consider this possibility

      • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 11:37
        +3

        We still need to pay to keep to keep American military industrial jobs safe at the expense of Australian taxpayers.

    • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 11:45
      +7

      John Howard stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush posing as a deputy sheriff . Where was America during the Bali bombing tragedy? . And E Timor? (where we did diddly but watch on) West Papua? .Where were these Indo Pacific focused folk?(insert cricket noise).
      They pick their fights. And we are just an easel for them to paint targets on our backs. The whole "China is gunna get us" crap is 'the yellow peril' gobshite being recycled. Commercially we grind to a halt tomorrow if China 'stopped' their (export) boats.
      Look how the Americans left Afghanistan. ( Many of their own are now livid over that mess) How successful was Iraq? Why were 'WE' at either destination? Look what it did to us and cost our men and women. And us. The most active America has been in our region is taking over Darwin (Pearl Harbour II) and following China around the indo pacific islands, waiting till they leave, and handing out hamburgers , Coke & a few brown paper bags of greenbacks to a select few individuals.
      This is not the 1940's anywhere but in the minds of the AUKUS Caucas dorkus
      This is not a three way alliance, it's a multi-generational bill, for an overnight invasion. The US beat China and only had to lift a pen.
      You have to add up all the human and fiscal costs of every single 'war' we have been drawn into in the middle east, and it to the $368M and the ongoing cost of veterans to appraise the AUKUS deal (trap).

      • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 14:20
        +2

        Cough cough…tragically it's $368 billion, not million.

        Just on a sidenote, would be fascinating given our national history of agreeing to massive submarine deals and then saying,"Ah changed my mind, can I cancel that order?" - what the agreement as such has regarding Australia not proceeding with this deal.

        But you'd have to think it'd be epic as if we thought France was pissed off imagine the political damage and ire from the US and UK if we back slid on this 'terrific mates rates' deal they've 'gifted' us.

      • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 14:28
        -1

        The USA did help Australia.

        Sure they still caused small problems but it could have been a lot worse like a full on invasion using their very large army.

        America also gave intelligence and told the Indonesians to (profanity) with us.

      • Ghost47 on 19/03/2023 - 17:44

        The whole "China is gunna get us" crap is 'the yellow peril' gobshite being recycled.

        True. If war broke out, the US would nuke China and tell the world China shot first, and all the plebs would believe it.

    • Sensiekatie on 16/03/2023 - 15:53
      +4

      I am not convinced that we can count on US protection if we were in serious danger. They haven't shown any interest in being involved previously unless either a) they are attacked directly (WWII - no involvement until Pearl Harbour) or b) they have something to gain from that involvement. Often, it is the contracts for rebuilding or being the puppet master behind the "new government/power".

      Yes we have treaties, but when push comes to shove, they are worthless. I am not against working with our allies in the sharing of intelligence and military protection. I am not convinced though that they actually think about these relationships in the same way that we do. Neither US or UK have been totally 100% honest with us in the past. One thing psychology did teach me was that past behaviour is the most reliable predictor of future behaviour. Thus, I make the assumption that they would be dishonest again if it suited their purpose.

      I am also starting to see the point others have made for years: that the US loves to throw it"s weight around including where it isn't wanted. Then we follow blindly along with them. That hasn't always worked out well in the past, so of course it will repeat in the future.

      • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 16:19

        I agree with you on nearly all your points. As long as our national interests align they'd be supportive of us, but if they diverged - yes as any smart nation should I'm certain they'd step away. Foreign policy is incredibly complex & trade, military, financial, diplomatic aspects all blend into one - so alas it isn't a 'pick & mix' & all nations use this to their own advantage, even with allies.

        To be fair to the US RE: WW2 you're right that Roosevelt wanted to stay out of direct military action and this was THE popular public view - but prior to Pearl Harbour they did provide an immense amount of material aid to Britain & others and also protected convoys with this aid (IIRC). Without this aid it's highly likely Britain, under huge stress from the German assault & uboats may have been vulnerable for Operation Sea Lion. So the US did play a huge part even without firing a shot.

  • vodamerc on 15/03/2023 - 15:49
    +13

    We deal with most of the worlds nuclear waste right now, the waste these subs will produce is tiny in comparison. The emissions output saved with nuclear enormous however.

    The French subs were crap outdated technology producing ridiculous co2 emissions.

    • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 15:58
      +1

      I think I saw an article that France offered Australia a nuclear option, but we chose not to take that up.

      • scotty on 15/03/2023 - 16:27
        +13

        When Malcolm Turnbull signed the deal with France in 2016, I think we went with diesel not to "anger" China. Afterall France generated almost 70% of their electricity from nuclear power plant — they are surely experienced. However the world's relationship with China in 2023 is quite different from 2016. How time has changed.

        • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:30

          I could be wrong, but I think that deal in 2016 started the decline in the relationship.

          • Aureus on 15/03/2023 - 19:44
            +6

            @GG57: You think us buying diesel subs to replace our existing subs started the decline in the relationship?

          • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 20:56
            +3

            @GG57: There's absolutely no way that deal would in anyway start a decline in the relationship.

            For starters the decline didn't start until 2018 with the ban on Huawei, something they took offense to.

            You don't need to trust me on that, take it right from the Chinese ambassador to Australia.
            https://apnews.com/article/technology-china-sydney-australia…

            We also likely picked conventional powered subs previously because we're big proponents of nuclear non proliferation and I don't think we realised how useless conventional powered subs were becoming. (And also because this much $$$ is kind of a hard sell).

            • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 13:49
              +1

              @JumperC: Nonsense, none of your replies understand world politics.

              China dislikes the west because they regard the century before WW2 as the century of shame, when the European powers and America, took places like HK etc.

              This is just a continuation of that, China is a nation that goes back thousands of years, they dont just look back or forward a few years.

              Huawei is not the start, this has been going on for hundreds of years.

          • gromit on 16/03/2023 - 13:10
            +1

            @GG57: the decline was more due to our self serving polly's using China as a political tool through the press rather than engaging in diplomatic channels. We are still wearing the consequences of polly's that think of no one but themselves.

      • mbck on 15/03/2023 - 16:30
        +9

        Yeah that was interesting. The French original design was nuclear. But we asked them to make them 'conventional' (diesel). And now we've turned around and said we want nuclear….but not from the French. And pay them a bunch of money.

        I definitely think something else is going on, just we haven't heard much.

        • thesilverstarman on 15/03/2023 - 16:40
          +5

          support. By getting suport and sharing technology with our 2 biggest allies, we triple the response we have in the event of an attack, and we ensure that our systems work with theirs.

          • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:41
            +3

            @thesilverstarman: Back to that question that keeps lurking; why would there be an attack on Australia?

            • Iwantthebestprice on 15/03/2023 - 18:50
              +1

              @GG57: I believe if China does decide to invade Taiwan for any reason, and the US gets involved, which they have stated they would, then Australia would have no option but to assist, similar with the UK, Canada and Japan jumping in to help because nothing would be better then the above countries putting China back in its place from being so openly hostile with its neighbours in the Asia pacific for so many years. Similar to how every country is donating weapons to Ukraine to put Russia back in its place.

              However if war were to break out and Australia assisted in defending Taiwan, you can be certain that would upset the Chinese to the point they would consider an attack on Australia.

              However I believe of almost every war simulation done on China invading Taiwan, the Chinese lose greatly and it would take years to recover from the embarrassment of losing so much for an island, again similar to Russias embarrassment that it’s a “super power” and can hardly get any footing in Ukraine.

              • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 12:00
                +1

                @Iwantthebestprice: You think if China invaded Taiwan, they would not seek to neutralise the front line machinery of the obvious bases etc?
                They won't be sanding a memo.
                There is so much lurking China tech in the West, they would probably knock the communications out by morning smoko.

            • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:12
              +1

              @GG57: Prepare for the worse.
              We didn't in the 30s and where did that get us? I drive past signs of the bombing every day.
              Let's hope those subs never need to be used.

            • CalmLemons on 16/03/2023 - 00:23
              +2

              @GG57: Wouldn't bother bro, general public has already been brainwashed with the latest media articles - murdoch pushing his agenda from his arms supplier buddies.

        • bemybubble on 15/03/2023 - 16:43
          +1

          I asked someone who is versed in this very field this very question. France offered Nuclear but we didn't want it.

          In a nutshell - France (according to this person) can't be trusted. Still needed weapons systems from the US and they won't share that info with the French.

        • RockyRaccoon on 15/03/2023 - 21:21

          You make assumption that France would have sold us nuclear subs. Of course they were happy to sell us detuned models, but they may not have agreed to it being nuclear. If they had we would have heard that line from Macron by now.

        • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 11:42
          +3

          Cashcow perhaps. We are a a resource-rich large country and the US and Europe is treating us as such not unlike colonial times.

          Our very own Defence doesn't seem to have Australian interests at its foremost, and is already likely compromised by the US.

        • Roentgenium on 16/03/2023 - 22:58

          the french subs would have required refueling every ~10 years as they are powered by "low enriched uranium" and we don't really have the domestic nuclear industry to do that.

          the UK/US subs are powered by a sealed "weapons grade uranium" unit which will last the life of the sub

      • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 20:49
        +1

        Technically that offer came after we'd withdrawn from the purchase. Their subs design was originally nuclear (probably a reason for the cost overruns), but used less enriched material than the US/UK design which means they need periodic refuelling, making them more complicated to operate. The US designed reactors have the downside of containing higher level 'weapons grade' nuclear fuel in order to never require refuelling. That's a downside in as far as being a proliferation risk but ultimately I wonder if the knee-jerk French 'option' mightn't have cost more and not lasted as long given the refuelling costs. As much as the whole situation with France was extremely poorly mishandled (itself the second abandoned program by the previous government), it ultimately would have definitely failed to produce anything useful and was already behind and over budget.

        Now we just get to pay a lot of money for something that might fail.

      • Rysta on 16/03/2023 - 09:56

        We put out a tender for diesel subs, they won the bid with a claim that they could adapt their nuclear subs to diesel. We can't use nuclear subs like the French one due to nuclear non-proliferation; we wouldn't be able to refuel it.

        These AUKUS ones are a loophole, the reactor is sealed and lasts decades without refueling, allowing us to use them without breaking nuclear non-proliferation. Nuclear was never an option for us before they were offered.

        • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 14:30

          Are you sure the Rarotonga deal (which I believe is the nuclear non-proliferation deal you allude to) isn't about nuclear weapons? As obviously we refuel nuclear installations all the time for other purposes e.g Lucas Heights for medical isotopes.

          And lets be frank - a govt has never backed out of or changed a deal it signed up for? Its not like there are any actual consequences, just a few days answering tricky questions - which sounds a lot like any day in Govt.

    • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 14:27

      The emissions that a dozen diesel electric subs make is a sparrow's fart in a hurricane when you consider any number of other stuff thats never mentioned - e.g the very low grade fuel oil that hundreds of thousands of giant transport ships and cruise liners run on, jet aircraft emissions, cow farts etc.

      The latest and greatest is needed or preferrable in some areas - but look at Ukraine, the most common infantry weapon is the AK47 variants and M2 brownings that are a design over 100yrs old still working great.

      The French design was problematic as we forced them to change them from their low grade uranium fueled original design to diesel/electric (which are actually quieter than nuclear when running on their electric cycle) - so they were again a hybrid we forced on the seller.

      Now we've back flipped on this - we're ok with high grade Uranium fueled boats at a massive delivery delay and upwards of 6-7+ times the price.

      The US apparently wouldn't allow their combat systems to be installed into the French boats and encouraged us not to go with that deal….and then we go with their instead. Not sure in what other Govt tender (as I've worked on a few) that would be allowed or atleast not ring massive alarm bells.

  • boomramada on 15/03/2023 - 15:53
    +13

    Real question is, do you think China going to attack us? This whole thing is a joke.

    • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 15:59
      +17

      I don't see why China (or any other country) would want or need to physically attack Australia, apart from nullifying our threat by hosting USA bases and weapons.

      • derrida derider on 15/03/2023 - 16:03
        +15

        Yes, the only reason China would ever have any motive to attack a distant but vital trading partner is because there are US naval bases there!
        The whole approach is built around utterly crazy logic.

        • Almost Banned on 15/03/2023 - 19:48
          +2

          Why would China attack a foreign country for hosting that country's allies?
          That makes even less sense.

      • AustriaBargain on 15/03/2023 - 16:03
        +3

        That's a bingo. The US can take our region for granted and China would be happy to take our region for granted instead, if possible. Need a giant satellite dish here? No problemo. Want to build a dry dock here for some huge ships? By all means.

      • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 18:42
        +6

        That's actually why they wouldn't. As we've seen with Ukraine, Syria etc. Big powers will deliberately avoid attacking each other directly all while attacking their allies. There's no need to 'physically' attack Australia, they could close shipping and wait for us to capitulate. There's a whole range of actions they're using against other countries that constitute attacks but don't rise to the level where they're invading.

        • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 11:43
          +2

          Agree, this nuclear subs deal put us closer to being a proxy battleground between the great powers US and China within this decade, just like Ukraine today.

      • donga100 on 15/03/2023 - 19:32
        +2

        If they know we can't do anything to stop them they might just decide to build a few islands with military bases on them and start fishing/drilling in the surrounding areas.

      • illusion99 on 15/03/2023 - 20:37

        They will attack to take out Pine Gap

        • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 23:09
          -1

          If China was to attack Australia individually they would deliberately avoid places where US personnel are stationed, unless they were already at war with the US. Pine gap is probably not going to be much use to anyone for long in a full scale war because listening to satellite communications won't be much help once we've got a full blown case of Kessler syndrome going.

          • illusion99 on 16/03/2023 - 07:57
            +1

            @JumperC: ANZUS treaty means that any Australia - China war would almost certainly involve USA as well. Pine Gap is also used to detect missile launches which is very useful in a war

            • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 14:30

              @illusion99: Pine gap is a signals intelligence, aka they listen to radio communications.

              Satellites watch for missile launches.

              Pine Gap cant see missile launches, curved earth stops a direct sight to china.

              • illusion99 on 16/03/2023 - 18:26

                @CowFrogHorse: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100878478

                "It also collects the thermal imagery, that heat bloom, of missiles launching."

                https://nautilus.org/publications/books/australian-forces-ab…

                “Pine Gap’s role is to downlink the data indicating a probable launch and compute its probable trajectory. These warning calculations are then transmitted to the less powerful but more fine grained missile defence radars in the western Pacific, which then have a realistic chance of locking onto the missile early in its flight and destroying it. Without the “cueing” provided by Pine Gap, this is difficult, if not impossible at the present time, making Pine Gap an integral part of United States ballistic missile defence”

    • vodamerc on 15/03/2023 - 16:04
      +19

      China is already invading us by buying up all our land and assets

      • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:06
        +8

        I agree with that, and that supports my view that a physical invasion or war is not necessary. Having nuclear submarines won't stop other countries owning our assets.

      • brendanm on 15/03/2023 - 17:25
        +11

        Our pathetic governments allow this.

        • CalmLemons on 16/03/2023 - 00:26
          +3

          They're not complaining. Melbourne City is no longer a ghost town, last two weeks, 40000 influx of Chinese students, $20-70k a pop each year into the economy.

          Business is business. A lot of this media coverage is just rhetoric to appease our overlords and to quell any disent from taxpayers.

          Want the 'notion' of american protection, gotta pay the billlions for their hand me down equipment.

          • brendanm on 16/03/2023 - 07:59
            +3

            @CalmLemons: You can have people come to the country without selling out land and assets to them.

          • smartazz104 on 16/03/2023 - 08:23
            +3

            @CalmLemons: So China doesn't need to physically attack us at all, they just flash some cash and we say "come right in".

        • illusion99 on 16/03/2023 - 09:17
          +3

          Blame the land owners who are selling to them. Where is the patriotism? Accept a lower price and sell to a fellow Aussie. Yeh nah not gonna happen

          • brendanm on 16/03/2023 - 10:03

            @illusion99: No, I blame the government who allows it to happen.

            • ripesashimi on 16/03/2023 - 11:05

              @brendanm: 'allowed' ftfy

              Those foreign investors who wanted Australian properties already owned them for years and are no longer foreign and will continue to hold for further appreciation. Current restrictions are good prima facie but they came in too late.

              I say after the crash, Chinese property market is way more desirable in terms of ROI. Theres very little incentive for new foreign investors to buy Australian properties as they are now. Those you see at auction are primarily citizens which have way too much spare cash, and we cant stop citizens from buying.

            • illusion99 on 16/03/2023 - 11:33
              +1

              @brendanm: And then you will whine about how the government won't let you sell your properties/stuff for highest price and how you have to accept a lower price to keep it in Australia

              • brendanm on 16/03/2023 - 11:41

                @illusion99: I wouldn't actually. Australia should belong to Australians.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join