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

  • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 19:51
    +2

    FWIW the wikipedia page on the Collins class subs is well worth a read:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine

    Whats scary is that they too were a completely untested design, that had massive delays, massive cost over runs and constant issues that led to repeated calls to literally turn them into scrap so bad was it at one point - but even allowing for present monetary valuation of their costs - they were a tiny cost compared to this purchase which might go down as the worst financial decision in the history of Australia.

    Here's a gem from it - and I think it's safe to say that we all could only wish to be so lucky as to work for an employer where you can get it SO WRONG - as the expert panel for our Govt did back in 2009 when they came to the following finding in their thoughts on what we should do to replace the aging and underwhelming Collins class fleet:

    According to the 2009 Defence White Paper, the submarine fleet is to be expanded to 12. The submarines will be equipped with cruise missiles and the world's most advanced torpedoes, sonars, combat systems, intelligence gathering systems as well as also being able to support special forces operations. The first submarine is expected to be in service by 2030. The 2009 White Paper predicted the cost of the new submarines at $35 billion.

    Only working for our Govt could a bunch of experts take many months, no doubt hundreds of thousands of dollars and come up with a finding that even allowing for time is well under one tenth of the estimated cost now. Just goes to show how crazy a quantum leap to buy this small handful of subs is. Yikes!

  • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 19:51
    +4

    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.)

    Honestly this is the real big concern. It does matter however how much of that cost is paid in USD/Pounds and how much is paid in AUD. Government spending over decades on our own skills, equipment etc doesn't cost as much as the headline figure, because it ultimately goes back into the economy. It has an inflationary effect, something that may more may not be desirable, we will only know in hindsight.

    There's several ways to find money. Cut spending, increase taxes, print money (inflation), borrow money. This is a very big amount, they will likely need to do at least two of these, maybe three.

    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.

    Honestly defence spending is like health insurance, if you don't ever use it, it's actually a win. War's basically never come from a good reason. They're almost always some miscalculation, so if you require a rational explanation for why it WILL happen, you'll have missed predicting basically every war ever. If you're looking for a rational reason NOT to start a war though, the threat of losing a lot of your own forces is a good one.

    China probably

    Yeah that's the game the world plays 'probably'. It's a question of consequences vs risk. Deterrence is what has kept us from a world war in nearly a century. Ultimately motives are unpredictable, but it's especially a poor calculation to assume dictators will make rational decisions. They tend to fall into the dictator trap where because they reward positive news they end up being told exactly what they want to hear, and eventually surround themselves with people who insist they will be welcomed as liberators and that their opponents allies will not back them, so they make irrational choices, like invading Ukraine.

    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 have hosted US nuclear submarines for decades on short term visits the length of time isn't relevant to any treaty. The 'Nuclear-Free Pacific Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga) doesn't actually prevent anyone from using Nuclear Power on land or on ships. New Zealand will not host any nuclear powered vessel, but that's specifically their law. It does prevent us from positioning nuclear weapons in Australia, so does the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

    By virtue of having these ships we will have to comply with safeguards from the IAEA as part of the NPT. How we're going to do that is going to be interesting. There's a number of ways it's possible. Probably of most concern is that Australia will be dealing with the waste, while the vessel itself will have a sealed unit, if we have the current reactor design on the US or UK subs then the decommissioning will lead to us having nuclear material capable of being used in weapons.

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

    Technically we already deal with Nuclear waste, it's stored in over 100 locations around Australia, while I'd rather we not deal with the waste we will end up with at the end of life for these subs, it's going to require us to actually deal with it properly, unlike what we're currently doing…. Our geography means it should be easier here than elsewhere.

    Obviously there are negatives.

    • The fuel in these reactors is the most high level nuclear material there is more or less. Capable of being used in weapons. While we are going to have to comply with IAEA safeguards to avoid an arms race in our region, one wonders how long that would last if we were say, blockaded by a very large foreign navy. I half wonder if that isn't the point.

    • A long time before we get them. Satellites and drones are basically making the surface of the ocean transparent to an enemy. That basically makes our shipping more vulnerable than any shipping has ever been, and diesel/electric subs also very vulnerable if attempting to protect that shipping.

    • There's a possibility that by the time we actually get these, the ocean itself will also be mostly transparent, somewhat negating their advantage. (That also removes second strike deterrence though, which means the world may be less stable). Of course, we also won't spend this money all at once, so if that happens or looks like happening imminently we can always stop.

    On the other hand, we might find that if the US/UK requires more subs, and don't have the capacity to build them, ultimately we may end up selling them back subs once we have the capability to build (most) of them.

    • lostgoat on 15/03/2023 - 20:02

      I think we are forgetting the positives . We are now well and truely in bed with both of them . Hopefully they won't forget us when the “it hits the fan especially one of em :)

      • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 20:06

        Hosting their forces is one of the pluses. As much as people say 'it makes us a target' it's actually the opposite, NATO puts forces from other nations in the border nations precisely so that Russia won't attack for fear of hitting other countries troops forcing their politicians domestic audiences onside.

        eg. It's not impossible that if China were to attack Australia that the US and UK would think twice, but politically it would be hard to sit it out if US/UK troops were killed in an initial strike.

        Basically you can't trust promises not to forget or defence treaties, but you can trust self interest!

      • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 20:09
        +2

        I think you jest - if their national interests ever didn't align with either of theirs (and the UK is a 3rd rate military power - confirmed by a recent study IIRC) they'd not give us a 2nd thought. Its just that its more complex than that - so I am sure we'll be fine in that regard but you don't have to look at much history to see many who thought the US had their back who were completely abandoned when it no longer suited their purposes to continue to assist.

        • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 20:22

          many who thought the US had their back who were completely abandoned when it no longer suited their purposes

          That's pretty much an excellent argument for this agreement.

          • freefall101 on 15/03/2023 - 20:52

            @JumperC: Cool, we can be the next Iran!

            • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 08:22

              @freefall101: Well technically for that to happen we'd need a democratically elected govt to be overthrown by a CIA supported military coup and a despised and incredibly corrupt 'Monarch' to be placed in charge - who'd use all kinds of torture & executions to try and stave off a popular uprising & removal of him.

              So unsure if we can meet the threshhold required as we don't have the natural resources to make doing this viable for the Yanks.

              Highly recommend any docus on this time period to folks, it combined with the US support for the completely depraved & despotic Saudi Arabian 'royal family' explains a lot of the issues in that part of the world we've endured for the past 60+yrs.

              Adam Curtis's 'Bitter Lake' is superb in covering the Saudi aspect in particular. Full BBC production so no 'foil hat' stuff - all very much known truths compiled in a superb production (as all of Curtis' stuff is - seek it out if you can!)

  • oaks101 on 15/03/2023 - 20:54
    +9

    How have so many idiots voted yes for this? this is your tax dollars its going towards. This should honestly have an opt out option when it comes to where your money goes towards. NDIS, Medicare completely dysfunctional and house prices and inflation cooked and we spend billions on something that has no benefit to anyone's day to day life.

    • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 21:03
      +2

      has no benefit to anyone's day to day life.

      Hopefully has no benefit to most people's everyday life.

      Didn't like Dutton's jumping at defunding the NDIS (though seriously they need to manage it properly, there's so much waste and rorting while also not helping everyone enough) .

      I couldn't vote use, because I'm not 'all for it'. But couldn't vote 'I'm against it' because there is a real rationale that this will help prevent us being treated like China is treating their nearer neighbours.

      Medicare isn't 'completely dysfunctional', but they need to do something about GP funding and regional health.

      Are we upset house prices are too high or that they're falling? So hard to keep track. Might have helped if we didn't spend all that money in the pandemic helping people renovate instead of building new stock.

      • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 08:25
        +2

        Yes, wasn't it hilarious that Dutton nearly ran to the press conference to announce that the coalition would support defunding medicare, aged care and the NDIS to ensure that this Sub deal had enough funds freed up for it. Haha no need to be in Govt if you can get YOUR policies pushed through anyway!

    • lostgoat on 15/03/2023 - 21:07

      That doesn't help Australia defend itself. You won't need to worry about any of that stuff if the world most populous country gets its way . The point is the $$$$$$$$ could have been spent a lllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooootttttttttttttttttttttttt. better . And yes that populous country is pushing .

  • Oofy Doofy on 15/03/2023 - 20:59
    +2

    😅 👎🏻

    If you needed to be certain about the kind of people making decisions for the country, this is it.

  • loropy9 on 15/03/2023 - 21:02
    +3

    We need nuclear powered hospitals.

    • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 21:04
      +1

      We have a nuclear reactor that's used to supply hospitals so…..

      • loropy9 on 15/03/2023 - 23:04

        Oh well, then everything is as it should be. We can focus on poking bears and dragons then.

  • Tiredman on 15/03/2023 - 21:41
    +2

    This is like buying volcano insurance. Rather the money be spent on more pressing issues in the country.

    https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1633321006420090881 This still cracks me up.

  • Ievgen on 15/03/2023 - 21:54
    +2

    As a Ukrainian living in Australia I say let’s have them all - subs, drones, tanks, strategic aviation, HIMARS, etc. In my motherland we relied on others (including Russia) to guarantee our safety. Let’s not repeat same mistake folks. Again - the more the merrier to keep our nation and our kids safe. If that means paying more in tax then so be it. If we want peace we need to proactively prepare for war.

    • franco cozzo on 16/03/2023 - 04:08
      +3

      hell yeah… slava ukraine at ANY COST & crank up the WAR MACHINE!!!
      ….& lets get READY TO RUMBLE!!!!!!!

    • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 09:25
      +1

      We should ask our daddy to supply it for free like Ukraine did :)
      Paying is for chumps

    • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 12:28
      +1

      "If we want peace we need to proactively prepare for war."
      And that's why we will never have peace. The snake eats it's tail

      If we want 'lasting' peace we need to stop breeding humans at the current rate, and plant more trees. Let the women run the show for the next 50 years. Psyche test US presidential candidates.

      The way the climate direction is headed, terrestrial water is the next front-line battleground.

      • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 13:13

        …terrestrial water is the next front-line battleground.

        Already happening apparently
        https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/are-water-wars-coming-to-asi…

        • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 13:56
          +2

          Yep, we put little value on ancient finite water in Straya. Rural communities carting water, exploring for in, and yet Twiggy,Gina,Clive et al can wash rocks with water older than Gondwana, and that will never recharge. Then there Indian companies growing sandalwood, us and multi-nationals growing inedible and low nutrition crops. By the time wake up, too late. If not already. Once the top layer of soil moisture goes in some places the vegetation loss will have downstream rainfall loss impacts too. But must have iron ore for guess who? Using whose money.Guess who.
          And it comes back as bin fodder, from guess where. Oh, the irony. (no pun intended)
          Pretty sure Bangladesh is the worlds major rice bowl (or one of) and rising sea levels and over irrigation, floods etc, have salinised it massively.
          Given climate change, I wonder how many bottles of water $368B will buy and how many Sydney Harbour's it represents. XTC was right, we be smartest monkeys, yeah nah.

          https://genius.com/Xtc-the-smartest-monkeys-lyrics

      • franco cozzo on 16/03/2023 - 16:22

        careful what you wish for….'women' arent what they traditionally used to be! (biologically speaking of course, so as to not offend 'women with penises')

        • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 16:27

          as long as they don't come from the ranks of the Libs I'd take the risk.

          Generally, it's men without brains and without balls we keep electing, and the results speak for themselves.

  • haidasalami on 15/03/2023 - 22:03
    +5

    OK let me get this strait … this a site that will argue for a bargain even at $1 difference but don't mind Blowing aways for 365Billion for seven submarines ???

    Chinese produce better nuclear submarines at 330Million a pop. They will make 1000 at the time US will ever make those seven.

    • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 22:30

      Technically it's 11-13 subs (8 of them built here here and 3-5 foreign built), and an enormous amount of money spent building the facilities to build them, the costs to operate them into the 2060s, the upgrades to the bases to maintain them, some unbelievably high number of nuclear scientists and other personnel, and the costs to dispose of the lot of them.

      In 2060, at the current rate of inflation, $368 billion will probably buy a Big Mac meal. :p

    • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 10:59
      +1

      Chinese produce better nuclear submarines at 330Million a pop.

      For a bargain site, this is a valid point. We could have bought a better product, cheaper. And China has a history of building infrastructure very quickly (and likely cheaper).

      We don't have a problem buying vehicles made in China; why not submarines?

      • muzzamo on 16/03/2023 - 13:27

        I tried searching aliexpress but couldn't find any subs that are similar to the virginia though.

      • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 16:31

        @GG57
        At some point the jokes either have to be funny or they just look like silly comments.

        Around a month ago every Government building etc started removing security/surveillance cameras that came from Chinese companies - due to fears they might have software backdoors in them to allow remote viewing by the makers. This got a strong response from China

        So yeah sure, we'd buy subs or even anything other than an inanimate/simple object from them for defence purposes..? I don't think so.

        • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 16:43

          Are we that confident that other countries don't do similar things?
          Even we have been caught out doing just that.

          • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 16:50

            @GG57: Above my paygrade to know such things - but my understanding is that China has been caught with it's fingers in the cookie jar with this type of activity before. Hence Huawei being shut out of network upgrades all around the world etc.

            When their is very little line between the state and the company - and that state is anything but friendly it's pretty normal for others to say, Thanks but we'll buy from someone else. Risk vs reward is too great to do otherwise.

            • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 16:52

              @Daniel Plainview: Australia was outed as spying on a friendly neighbour. We would be ignorant to consider that was the only time we have done it.
              Every country does it. Every country's embassies have 'defence attache' roles or similar, who are intelligence gatherers.

              China is just cleverer than a lot of other countries.

              • Daniel Plainview on 17/03/2023 - 13:11

                @GG57: 100% correct - and yikes that was a pathetic effort by us on that one.

                You're stating the obvious and something I never queried nor challenged - in fact stated that allies spy on each other e.g The USA was embarrassingly caught bugging private calls of Macron and Merkel.

                The difference is China throws a childlike tantrum when it's called out on it's spying and locked out of tenders etc

                Whether China is 'cleverer' remains to be seen….there's no great evidence to support this IMHO - I will say that they are patient, which is in and of itself a virtue (generally) - but I suspect the USA and allies will use this against them - in their pursuit of a policy of geographic containment - but we will all see.

                • GG57 on 17/03/2023 - 13:21

                  @Daniel Plainview: If we were to believe everything we read or hear, China has had TikTok collecting data since late 2017/early 2018.
                  And only now, years later, governments are just starting to remove it from government mobiles! Why did they have it in the first place?

                  I submit again that China is more clever than a lot of other countries.

                  The tantrums are more likely to do with saving face than anything else.

  • CauseNEffect on 15/03/2023 - 22:09
    +4

    This is buying US support fo the next 20 years..

    Also we need the capability to host nukes of our own to stop china invading/ war via M.A.D…

    • franco cozzo on 16/03/2023 - 16:34
      +1

      lol….we dont need to buy their support! five eyes….
      this is just kickbacks for mates…us syphons money out of their economy to ukraine, au syphons money to the us…..etc
      good time to be part of the military industrial complex i guess!

      • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 16:51
        +2

        Has their ever been a 'bad time' to be part of the military industrial complex?

        Look at all the challenges our species is facing and more than ever we're pumping finances, research times, resources & actual lives into killing each other. Somewhere the Aliens are kicking back and laughing as they bide their time to waltz in and take over.

        • CauseNEffect on 16/03/2023 - 19:18

          Humans are the smartest species on the planet via our enormous brains, such a shame that we use so little of it.. then there's short term selfish thinking like useless wars.

          Yes we are wasting money here on useless war machines, however we need to secure our nation in the future and these subs are an important component.

          Look up M.A.D… thats why most nuke owning nations have them..

          Australia is a huge resource rich nation that is very (profanity) hard to secure. China can easily take us at the moment but not if we have nukes on subs that could wipe out their big cities.

          • Daniel Plainview on 17/03/2023 - 11:31

            @CauseNEffect: I do agree - alas while it'd be great to all globally agree defence wasn't needed - it's pie in the sky stuff due to human nature & risk vs reward of someone gaming the system.

            Just about every nation in the world could be 'taken' by other countries IF those countries simply wanted to - but the ramifications of this and holding those nations are another thing altogether, even for the most powerful nations e.g US in Iraq & Afghanistan.

            I agree we need appropriate defence systems commensurate to the threat & also our means - alas I feel we've erred on both these counts on these subs.

  • shutuptakemymoney101 on 15/03/2023 - 22:15

    Nobody loves a shiny new extremely capable Australian sub until the enemy is knocking on the gate ;-)

    • franco cozzo on 16/03/2023 - 16:35
      +1

      …hopefully 'the gate' is under water!!!

  • Prosp24 on 15/03/2023 - 22:46
    +4

    As an engineer with respect for technical detail and pragmatism, i have nothing but disgust for the way politics has grown and developed in the country.

    Something as important as this should not be used for political points. Few notes that should raise instant red flags:

    • the proposal was developed under scott morrison….which says a lot about its credibility already
    • per keatings commentary, albanese decided it didnt even need 24 hrs worth of analysis/assessment for the green tick.
    • there are some legit points being raised by Mr Keating about the value to cost ratio of the deal and practicality that seem obvious, these points have previously been raised elsewhere in the media. A much cheaper and better solution likely exists, like the collins class submarines aforementioned. Government is generally not efficient at procurement/execution compared to the private market (e.g. nbn)

    Sounds a lot like politicians itching for a quick and popular announcement rather than proper governance, bit gross no.

    How good is Paul Keating, to call out all the colourful language of the media and say things as he sees them. Which frankly i find to be a far more reliable indicator than the so called 'experts'.
    Modern technology and modelling is often deceptively complicating and incorrectly diagnosing what are often very simple problems (at least in my fields).
    Individuals with the tenacity to poke their nose into current day affairs and call out blatant wrongs even if they stand alone, are invaluable and of a long bygone era.
    It seems the new status quo is to gang up and take majority view, a sad reality of the failure of our education system to build and develop individuality, expression, unique opinions and frankly, real leadership. An old quote i cant quite recall the entire source of (e.g. 1940s), describes the greatest threat to democracy as the ever increasing power of the majority to pressure and coerce minorities and individuals into adopting the same views (e.g. peer pressure), something unfortunately all too common today. It seems all too unfortunate that every social movement now has a polarising black and white response, one of which incurs direct repercussion.

    Mr Keating is only an individual but his courage and presence to stand up directly in public to the very vocal majority to express a conflicting opinion or view is something to admire and applaud in itself. We should be celebrating different opinions in the media not trying to assimilate them into one.

    Anyone worldly enough to have travelled and seen how other people live in other countries will also know that an 'us or them' mentality in the world is ridiculous. You might as well try taking the same mentality down to the local supermarket to find your so imagined 'enemies'.
    The same mentailty of more weapons for 'protection' seems a step closer to the US mentailty around guns, which have worked out well…..
    I would greatly encourage anyone with a closed mind to take an international trip and challenge their point of view.
    Are people in many of these countries truely 'opressed' and war hungry like a fictional story (looking at 1984) or are they just ordinary individuals happy living everyday lives with everyday simple joys? The assumptions i see australians adopt at a whim, sometimes just bewilders me.

    There comes a point where you just have to recognize that even media in western countries comes saturated with its own type of hawkish propaganda.

    In practical and more historical terms, my view is that when wars do occur, companies make money selling weapons to governments. Government give weapons to soldiers. soldiers go out and die. But of course soldiers consist largely of good young men from normal and poorer households, with the wealthier getting some sort of exemption/concession. In the end the poor fight each other and die, large companies and the rich prosper and profit, everyone pays 'inflation' and tax to fund the weapons/profits and everyone is distracted away from the real problems in our world… Growing inequality, environmental degradation, poverty/hunger, natural disasters, healthcare.

    Food for thought

    • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:06
      +2

      Hi Paul!

      Something as important as this should not be used for political points. Few notes that should raise instant red flags:

      the proposal was developed under scott morrison….which says a lot about its credibility already

      I mean.I'm no fan of Scummo, but it's a bit funny to put those sentences right after each other.

      albanese decided it didnt even need 24 hrs worth of analysis/assessment for the green tick.

      What are you talking about? They've been discussing it for 18 months?

      As an engineer with respect for technical detail and pragmatism, i have nothing but disgust for the way politics has grown and developed in the country.

      Same, and yet, completely the opposite conclusion.

      Government is generally not efficient at procurement/execution compared to the private market (e.g. nbn)

      I think some people imagine that all business procurement is as efficient as a small business that needs to be to survive. Government generally inefficient, but so are very large businesses. It's a question of scale. On the other hand in some circumstances the Government can (rarely) be much much more efficient (compare the PBS in Australia with what insurers in the US pay for medicines).

      There's no doubt a project with this many 0's on it will be woefully inefficient. That's the nature of the beast.

      Anyone worldly enough to have travelled and seen how other people live in other countries will also know that an 'us or them' mentality in the world is ridiculous. You might as well try taking the same mentality down to the local supermarket to find your so imagined 'enemies'.

      Sure agree 100%. But you'd also have to have your head in the sand to not notice the state of the world at the moment. You don't have to see everyone as an enemy to pursue a deterrent you hope is a complete waste of money. If you want peace you have to provide a credible deterrent to prevent exactly the sort of war that sees people dying. That China has in the last 12 months attacked an Australian aircraft isn't a supermarket hallucination, it's reality. Ignore it at your peril.

      The same mentailty of more weapons for 'protection' seems a step closer to the US mentailty around guns, which have worked out well…..

      We're not talking about acquiring nuclear weapons here, it's not the same 'everyone is less safe kind of deal'. If we could all agree to disarm then the world would be safer, but that's not reality. The domestic gun control measures we have here work because the government can be effective at enforcing them, and because one single person with a lot of weapons can irrationally cause a lot of damage before being stopped. We're witnessing in Ukraine what happens when one person individually has too much power without account. Is it the best that you need to arm others to prevent that? NO. But is it necessary, unfortunately, yes.

      God I wish and hope I am wrong.

      • Prosp24 on 16/03/2023 - 01:00

        I refer to todays article in the guardian, specifically:

        Keating criticised Anthony Albanese particularly for the decision in September 2021 to offer unqualified support for Scott Morrison’s plan
        “The prime minister thought a gigantic shift of this kind deserved less than twenty-four hours’ analysis,” Keating said

        And deterrence, particularly nuclear often refers to the ICBM type nukes (their existence alone is deterrence) and no doubt theres been a reliance on the superpowers but these arent submarines….

        In terms of direct conflict…you gotta be kidding, look at population, landmass, equipment/vehicles. The population of australia is a speck in the ocean (less than one major international city), the landmass is too large to defend

        The best you can get out of those is a false sense of security, and a fancy political announcement, the worst you can get is pulled into your own proxy war like the next korea, vietnam, afghanistan, ukraine, taiwan … australia, i mean the US need someone to keep selling weapons to right.

        Nukes are the real deterrence but Nuclear non proliferation exists for a reason. If we all adopted your proposed logic and lived in fear, the chance of an accidental 'end of the world' scenario triggered by any one operator or country would be ridiculously higher.

        Instead, luckily we live in an open world, with open borders and communication where most countries dont have nukes, diplomacy is often the respected way with the exception of a few superpowers. Why we are trying to pull so far above our ability and size is the better question, and at the expense and cost of the current population

        Anyway, appreciate the read and discussion

        • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 01:38

          “The prime minister thought a gigantic shift of this kind deserved less than twenty-four hours’ analysis,” Keating said

          That's a claim he made based on when he said the opposition was briefed, the truth of it even he doesn't know for sure. The whole plan didn't have much structure at that point so could be shaped before signed, and it was pretty obvious that the existing subs weren't going to be very useful by that point.

          In terms of direct conflict…you gotta be kidding, look at population, landmass, equipment/vehicles. The population of australia is a speck in the ocean (less than one major international city), the landmass is too large to defend

          Deterrence isn't just nuclear, it's an ability to impact the attacker in a way they don't want, or to prevent them from thinking a particular course of action will have the desired effect. For starters this deal places more foreign forces in Australia, the purpose of this is to make the collateral damage in any first strike, leading to them also being pulled into any war. That's worth more than any submarine. Australia's maritime border is HUGE and yet China's navy is increasingly looking able to be in a position where they could close our trade routes with absolute impunity. No need to step foot in the country, in weeks to a couple of months we'd be literally starving.

          Australian defence doctrine has never been about defending the entire landmass. The size makes it equally hard to hold, though much of it is rather useless. Subs or no subs doesn't make a diference in a 1:1 invasion from a superpower. But we're not talking about an invasion.

          The best you can get out of those is a false sense of security, and a fancy political announcement, the worst you can get is pulled into your own proxy war like the next korea, vietnam, afghanistan, ukraine, taiwan … australia, i mean the US need someone to keep selling weapons to right.

          It really isn't though, we'd likely get pulled into many a fight, this announcement or not. This drastically increases the chance the US gets pulled into a fight though.

          If we all adopted your proposed logic and lived in fear,

          This isn't proposed logic, it's proven reality. Unless you're talking about nuclear weapons, in which case I didn't propose that. And fear has nothing to do with it. Precaution isn't fear, that's like saying a seatbelt is 'fear'. It's a sensible precaution.

          the chance of an accidental 'end of the world' scenario triggered by any one operator or country would be ridiculously higher.

          I've never once argued for proliferation of Nuclear weapons so that's a weird strawman. One might argue that a lack of a conventional force increases the chance of nuclear war. Russia likely wouldn't have invaded Ukraine had they had even their current equipment a couple of years ago. And that miscalculation and lack of preventative spending has put us much closer to an 'end of world' scenario. The point isn't to fear others, it's to speak softly and carry a big stick.

          The world doesn't exist in black and white, you can't pretend it's nice to make it so. China is out there ramming other nations fishing boats, throwing chaff into our aircraft's engines. There's a whole range of non 'war' activities that they obviously feel won't lead to any reprisal, largely because they know for sure the target nations are incapable of conducting any defensive action at all on their own beyond a few miles from their own coasts.

          Also, weird to argue that the subs are a false sense of security but that we also shouldn't live in fear. Either the security is real or we should be more fearful.

          • Prosp24 on 16/03/2023 - 03:07

            @JumperC: I agree with and respect many of your points, in particular the need to build more capacity in general defence.

            but to return to relevance of the governments actions and Mr Keatings criticisms, i think that there are very real questions and critisms that havent been answered, that many will feel differently about:

            • can 8 nuclear submarines really be considered effective deterence (would this stop a superpower), and are they worth the heavy costs quoted (a third of a trillion $)? Has this decision been given the rigour and robustness that would stand up and be otherwise defendable if it were made transaparent to the public. As opposed to say other options such as the much more affordable collins class submarines?
              Or is the announcement politically motivated and a big white elephant in the details and assumptions.

            • should australia have completely swayed to the US for a single quick price for used stock or should it have improved its own soverign capability or should it have considered competitive pricing from a larger market of offers from other states (e.g. frances revised nuclear offer, japan etc.) What is the difference in cost from different providers?

            • Has australia genuinely adopted its own soverign attempts at diplomacy or has it too quickly adopted the majority views of its allies rather than forming its own views, and benefitted too easily politically through the beating of war drums. Are we too quickly becoming an extension of the US, and a particularly vocal one.
              i wouldn't quite consider these actions speaking softly…. More like a declaration to act as an extension of us militarisation and establishment, (a more right wing action than any prior liberal government ironically)

            The article relating to Mr Keating, suggests that politics has come in front of some of the principles of good project management, which is no suprise unfortunately. But at these enourmous costs, we have the right to question, the level of effort and detail that has occured in the background

            Frankly if a PM is far too trigger happy when it comes to spending excessive amounts in relation to the GDP, then their character and decision making comes into question and concern. $350+ billion is a tremendous and unprecendented amount, what next? variations, blow outs, extensions? More weapons, vehicles?

            No doubt voters did not know of nor direct their votes at the election around this spending. Given many are doing it rough, and there are other immediate problems impacting everyday individuals (e.g. housing, rates etc), this just seems much more grand than it needs to be. Almost like a scomo publicity stunt to distract from the real problems that need fixing.

            As there arent as many australians, big costs like these do not get spread out as well as other countries, and frankly i dont think many would appreciate their children picking up the tab for poor project management and excessive spending for big political announcements.

            I mean, if defence upgrades happen in the background, undertaken by the defense force, soft speaking/low profile, covert details, with capable hands, and roughly within budgeted costs, why not?

            But when the big politicians come together for big grand public announcements, large costs and headlines all over the papers, words like 'nuclear' and 'red alert'. Is that more defence or is that more politics?

            The concept of war is an easy distraction from domestic issues unfortunately, and with the economy the way it is now, its a great method for politicians to deflect and distract away from other issues they can be blamed for like cost of living.

  • Kamsi on 15/03/2023 - 22:51
    +4

    America is in trillions dollars of debts they need Australian to purchase weaponry to support the American war machines so that they can survive.

    • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 12:38
      +2

      If this deal proceeds we will easily reach a trillion dollar+ debt. You have to factor in all things going fwd. The money to train & educate speciality cannon fodder and other roles needed( which frankly will see a lot of socially beneficial developments disappear in health,medicine,agriculture etc)
      Inflation + cost / time overruns etc.Nothing will get cheaper over the time-frame. Some stuff China used to supply will dry up completely.
      Got me fecked how anyone can look at the USA today and claim they are a role model.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 15/03/2023 - 22:52
    +1

    They'll go back and forth on the decision a dozen times before they even start to build them. In the end we'll be $billions out of pocket and have sub-standard or more likely, no actual subs.

    Won't make any difference, if China invades, we'll have 2 weeks max.

    • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:54

      Why would they invade, they can just put a naval blockade on trade and wait for surrender with impunity without firing a shot. If only there was some risk, any risk, we might shoot something.

      • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 09:04
        +1

        they can just put a naval blockade

        Well that's when our subs will come in handy isn't it ;)

  • Blargman2001 on 15/03/2023 - 23:02
    +2

    A modern navy worth it's salt needs submarines, but 300 billion dollars for eight is lot of money. The return on investment is terrible.

    • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:53
      +1

      11-13 subs 8 concurrently. Plus bases / manufacturing facilities / staff / operating costs / maintenance / disposal of waste at end of life etc out to the 2060's. Can always build more. or less later. For incremental additional / marginal savings.

      I hope the return is terrible. Will suck if we're sitting around saying how lucky it was we purchased them.

      • Blargman2001 on 16/03/2023 - 13:07
        +1

        For $360 billion we could probably buy 100+ off the shelf diesel electric submarines. With that many, if they could get in to theatre, we could probably sink half the current Chinese surface fleet if they chose to blockade us. Whereas 8 nuclear subs would just be nuisance.

  • Willy Beamish on 15/03/2023 - 23:09
    +2

    Theres enough Chinese in Australia as it is if they wanted to do something, submarine sounds pointless.

    • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:50

      You're making an assumption that ethnicity = political motivation.

      • TSH on 16/03/2023 - 08:27

        I'm making an assumption that you = anglo saxon

  • Aerith-Waifu on 15/03/2023 - 23:51
    +6

    Once again it show how incompetent are the Australia Politicians.

    China absolutely does not need to invade Australia, all they have to do is cut off cheap export to Australia and that's enough damage done.

    Don't believe me? Well just look at the supply issues happening now and also the supply issues happening when big w, kmart, target are all out of stocks to sell. People are going mad asking when the stocks are coming!

    $368B can fix the real problems at home like the Doctor shortage, Medicare and so much more.

    And in 30 years time, the technology back then will be far superior than whats available now.

    Australia has again…………been played by the US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:50

      China absolutely does not need to invade Australia, all they have to do is cut off cheap export to Australia and that's enough damage done.

      Without this capability they could cut off ALL imports to Australia, forget cheap ones, we don't even store our emergency supplies of oil here, we rent space in the US! We're going to have trouble producing food without fuel imports. Blockading trade is a lot riskier if your blockades can be attacked. It's basically zero risk if they can't.

      Given we're not starting to build them until at least the late 2030's there's plenty of time to incorporate newer technology if available.

      • coldlambsandwich on 16/03/2023 - 09:33
        +1

        So what happens if we have this capability and China hypothetically cuts off all trade with Australia - will we use the subs to attack Chinese ships and force them to trade with us? Don't see how more offensive military technology for Australia helps at all to improve the situation.

  • Top G on 16/03/2023 - 00:05
    +1

    Yeh China is for sure building up a massive military to just attack Taiwan and then chill. No, Taiwan is just the entree.

    • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 09:28
      +3

      Bottom G logic, Taiwan = China
      How many other full fledged conflicts has China been in? How about the US? :)
      Compare the pair

      • Top G on 16/03/2023 - 09:46

        China tried to attack Vietnam just around 1980 they obviously have aspirations, and that was when their military was weak. That’s nothing in terms of global time scale.

        Better than the US right now but they are following a similar path. Just didn’t have the capability before but with that fresh equipment they’re ready to rock + boost their economy now manufacturing is diversifying to other countries.

        • Dognosis on 16/03/2023 - 15:17
          +1

          Block-quote
          Obviously have aspirations?
          Block-quote

          Pretty sure the Sino-Viet war wasn't due to China wanting to gain territory. It was some kind of punitive mission against North Vietnam expansionism and the Chinese left right after they invaded.

      • Deridas on 16/03/2023 - 12:51
        +1

        TightAl…
        Chinese involvement?

        There was Korea…
        Then there was Vietnam…

        You also need to define "full fledged"…

        You also really shouldn't negatively change someone's name/handle just because you disagree with them; that's kind of personal, like calling people names in an argument.

        • Dognosis on 16/03/2023 - 15:36
          +1

          Yes China has done a lot of fighting before but this is not evidence for some kind of future threat to the existence of places like Australia or most of Asia.

          Yes I think we should be worried about Taiwan and maybe other parts of Asia, but maybe not assume that this is Imperial Japan 2.0.

          Australia doesn't have to over react.

  • RatBargain on 16/03/2023 - 00:16
    +3

    1) Australia is a nation of migrants
    2) We’re facing a labour shortage, aging population and critically low birth rates
    3) No two people can agree on anything as trivial as sport, overgrown weeds, let alone politics, crime and war
    4) Which surviving Ozbargainers & your children are going to be motivated to be conscripted in this Chyna war instead of Netflix, Hinge, GTA6 n chill?

    Perhaps the gov should import some cheap migrant workers to man these Subs?

    $368 billion pays for alot of high speed rail 😑

    • Prosp24 on 16/03/2023 - 10:20
      +1

      Suburban rail loop in victoria is estimated at like what 50-80 billion. Could have had orbital underground subway networks for all the major capital cities

    • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 18:11

      So you want to commute from Brisbane to Sydney for a job every day ?

      Because thats what will happen…

      HST is unnecessary it only encourages more pointless travel.

  • RatBargain on 16/03/2023 - 00:33
    +4

    Not to mention, how are a dozen subs in the middle of the south china sea going to stop hypersonic glide vehicles, ICBMs & other high tech evil we haven’t even heard of?

    Warfare is still being dreamt up by dinosaur US/AUS politicians grifting off the deal. A multi decade current generation nuclear sub?

    Are we that dense to think China have not already war gamed the shit of out that sub class and capability for precise counter measures, let alone 30-40 years from now?

    What a waste of money

    • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:44

      Are we that dense to think China have not already war gamed the shit of out that sub class and capability for precise counter measures, let alone 30-40 years from now?

      The deal starts with Subs based here in 2027, with the current gen subs in early 2030's so ~15 years.

      If ICBMs etc are the threat then surrender now I guess. But I don't think anyone is planning on stopping a full scale invasion, more deterring the sort of opportunistic aggression China are already increasingly engaged in that stops short of a full blown war. Without that capability it's becoming increasingly possible to just interdict our trade and cause us to capitulate without actually attacking the country itself.

      AUKUS also includes hypersonic weapons partnerships etc.

      precise counter measures, let alone 30-40 years from now?

      Currently they're going to be very difficult to counter completely. The ocean is very big, they could be anywhere. In the next 10-20 years the surface is going to be increasingly transparent thanks to drones and larger fleets of satellites That puts conventional subs on a limited lifespan before they're obsolete.

      Will the same be true for all subs in 40 years? Maybe. That is definitely a risk.

      • RatBargain on 16/03/2023 - 10:58
        +1

        We simply do not have sustainable innovation, labour, manufacturing, industry nor appetite to fuel this idiotic money furnace of a vanity project.

        ‘Well, we can dig some more rocks & sell some land to China to pay for this war against China… oh no sorry, the next govt spent it already and we’re in deficit again’

        We are projecting massively to play with the ‘big boys’ while we don’t even register as a blip of significance. The disrespect from the US & their military industry like a toy, lap dog-pawn is palpable.

        ‘Siding with Mericans because their share our values’ — Has anyone been paying attention to how insanely divided, insanely inhumane, insanely violent and bigoted & chaotic that country is? They are full fascists on a flip of the election coin!

        Without mentioning systemic racism, gun advocacy, welfare or medicare, this teen lays out the fkd up women hating, fascist laws being passed right now. Shared values right?

        https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/163572888403651788…

        • RatBargain on 16/03/2023 - 11:31
          +1

          The brinkmanship is insanely stupid. At any point we are the first to hypocritically yell the loudest (cue next elected LNP scumo / Labor, chest beating PM trying to impress our yank mates)

          And the first to get smashed and made an example of ie. Our Proxy trade conflict losses led to American trade gains 🤦‍♀️

          If ICBMs etc are the threat then surrender now I guess. But I don't think anyone is planning on stopping a full scale invasion, more deterring the sort of opportunistic aggression China are already increasingly engaged in that stops short of a full blown war. Without that capability it's becoming increasingly possible to just interdict our trade and cause us to capitulate without actually attacking the country itself.

          Unfortunately containment subs will probably escalate to the point where mistakes can be made with drastic consequences. At best we’re shadowing and monitor international waters for trade & US containment agendas. The moment our subs genuinely consider using a weapon we’ll be screwed.

          It wouldn’t even be a war, just picking off easy targets energy, rail, road, satelites, trans-pacific fibre and trade. Boots, boats and planes entirely unnecessary.

    • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 12:48
      +2

      China will have underwater drones perfected , for picking of subs like shooting fish in a barrel, long before Trump has his first good idea.
      As a nation , politically ,we are hypocrites.

      If China was as big a threat we would trade embargo, rather than whinge about crays, wine and t-bones going their way. Australia had an identity problem up until AUKUS, now we have a proxy one.A suppository of serfdom, thanks to Albo.
      Uncle Sam needs you kiddies.

      • RatBargain on 16/03/2023 - 14:09

        If we had any sense, these 'new subs' would actually be designed as unmanned or skeleton, remote operated, partly automated drones.

        • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 14:12
          +1

          In effect we have surrendered all control of our borders to 2 other nations, so we may as well just rent subs+crew, and just sit in wait for a nuke accident of Americas next suicide mission war. Pretty sure renting/leasing would be cheaper, and then we can get on with watching reality TV and exterminating fauna.

        • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 18:15

          Want to know why 5G is much higher frequency than the slower lower frequency ?

          Because higher frequency can carry more data, it also cant go thru water. THe only frequencies that can go thru water are very very low frequencies < 100hz.

          If a submarine communicates back, it has to surface, and it does that its location is given away.

          How exactly is a sub going to be remote without giving away its location ?

          You have no idea what you are talking about its embarrassing.

      • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 18:12

        Really ?

        So you know more than all the spy agencies of our governments ?

        • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 18:27
          +1

          What the… The spy agencies have told YOU what THEY know, too?

          We think we know how advanced the US is , (by what they 'tell' us) and yet a few weeks back they were blowing away hobbyist balloons (permitted) from their airspace and 'assuming' Chinas balloon was a spy balloon before they knew.
          All that tech and both (a few more) crossed into supposedly monitored air space. Now they admitted after the event 'maybe it was a hobby balloon', but that did not stop the flow of BS and propaganda, did it?

          Based on Chinas leaps ahead in military tech,
          https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/these-chinese-military-in…

          we can safely assume success or closing in on in in their anti submarine tech.^

          https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/chi…
          >

          "In January, the South China Morning Post reported the PLA introduced a new underwater surveillance network designed to help China’s submarines get a stronger lock on targets, while also offering protection for the nation’s interests along the maritime Silk Road.

          The system, which uses buoys, surface vessels, satellites and underwater gliders, is able to gathering a plethora of data about the underwater environment from the South China Sea, and the Western Pacific and Indian oceans.

          Information is sent in real-time to three intelligence centres where it is processed and analysed, with the data used to improve navigation and positioning, plus giving the ability to accurately track target vessels."

          Look, Biden needs a military backdrop to win the election. (sound familiar? Out war monger the war monger opposition.) He is reinventing himself and we are a part of the scam. With no way out

        • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 18:35
          +1

          and this is titillating..
          https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41478/china-tested-an-…

          DISCLAIMER: [Opinions on veracity are varied, …]
          but boy imagine the disappoint of the first bog lap of our brand new stealth submarine , circling in the S China Sea.

  • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:53

    China has nuke subs so why can't we? Why do they have their knickers in a knot?
    They even have nukes and missiles that can hit the Australian mainland.
    They need to stop being sooks and having a hissy fit over nothing.
    And yeah they cost a lot. But I bet if we had of spent more money on defence back in the 30s we might not of been bombed so I'm not going to play Chamberlain today.

    • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 12:59
      +3

      Not the 1930's anymore. The world has changed.
      Except in the minds of those who still buy into the 'the Yanks saved our arses, so we owe them" dialogue.

      Lets all get nuclear weapons too, shall we. Level the playing field. Literally

      Darwin is now target number one again. Thanks to (insert the obvious).
      B52's on our sovereign soil and the govt is hiding the truth about their weapons makeup, behind spurious rules.
      And on the other hand Marles and Albo claim 'we' have no nukes. ( Mobile radiocative goal posts)
      It's pathetic and violates the spirit and tenet of nuclear non- proliferation treaty integrity.
      Such existential policies should and must be approved by the people of Australia.
      Or we have zero sovereignty (which is what AUKUS represents) Who is this ALP in control?
      Can you imagine either how much debt we will now endure, and what vital social policies we will lose?

      • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 17:31

        i drive around Darwin daily and havent seen any B52s.
        To deny that the yanks saved us would to imply you are ignorant of history. Without the support of the US our history would of been completely different.
        I dont recall Australia attempting to invade Japan first. It was Japanese expansionist policy that bought their own destruction and rebirth.
        LOL, spirit and tenet…its either written in black and white or its not.
        you come across a bit Chamberlain like to me to ignore the potential intentions of a expansionist China.
        Yes we will have debt. But its a lot more expensive to society to be unprepared and to let stronger nations think they can bully and push around smaller and weakly armed nations around them.
        But you didnt answer my main points. China has nukes. and actual weapons of mass destruction, they have numerous nuclear propelled and armed submarines. Why do they not want us have nuclear powered ships? We already have a nuclear power station. this is the same, it just works on a ship instead of fixed place.
        It seems hypocritical of China to say anything at all when they have done the same already in greater numbers.
        If China gave up its nukes id be the first to say we should do the same. Until then they can shut up.

        • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 17:55
          +1

          "To deny that the yanks saved us " They stopped the war dead in in tracks with nukes yes.
          But to extrapolate that as an IOU to the end time, or to conclude that circumstances today support infinite maintenance on their terms is another form of surrender by default. We have over romanticised the relationship, and clung to the sentiment back then.
          It was the war to end all wars was it not?

          I would prefer no-one had nukes. But that's apparently no longer an option. The idea that everyone but America should give up their nukes first is the psyche that haunts the whole planet. Believe me I have a lot of 'investment' in the whole WWII.

          AFAIK China has never said they don't want us to have nuclear subs. Bu that's a handy twist for one side though. My take is they are critical of AUKUS because, well read this thread. It's a direct and equal (American super power) threat as much as the Chinese involvement in the pacific region is. It has already moved other countries or made them reposition 'us' in their minds.

          I take it the Yanks must have drawn up the non nuke treaty then, by what you infer.SHAFTUS is beyond a shit decision, ushered in via the subtle tunes of Vera Lyn.
          The crucial and irrefutable point is war and weaponry and the militarisation of Straya has happened over night.
          Millions of Aussies don't like it, lots of our neighbours don't like it, and none of them were asked. So I see it as the greatest and probably most dangerous betrayal of our time. Labor is no longer fit to call themselves Labor any more. They first morphed to LNP lite, not they are just tweedle dumber.
          We are less safe today than yesterday because of our govts policy.We will be even less safe when we are packed with targets on our backs. I for one believe we could have managed a healthy diplomatic relationship with both China and America and having a respectful relationship leads to an open door. This is a more like slamming it in their face. Keating was also right about the fact we have no moral credit in the bank on human rights to counter Chinas behaviour.

          • DarwinBoy on 17/03/2023 - 10:37

            @Protractor: i think you will find that we are in alliance with the US because as a nation we are more similar to them then China, hence better relationship..
            Our living experience here in Australia is significantly different to what people experience in China. Its as simple as that.
            Also WW! was the war to end all wars. WW2 was a follow up and continuation of bad politics and legacy of WW1.
            Also the US never drafted the NPT the UN did. It was designed to stop the spread and to reduce nuclear weapons. It was never there to stop nuclear power. If you dont like nuclear ships have you been protesting Lucas heights as vocally the last 60 years, both are simply power sources?
            So you think we should not go ahead with the plan because of a % of the population dont like it and our neighbours? well how about you start a political party and get people to vote you in and see if your views represent the majority then. Becuase this plan is backed by Labor and Liberal and they have been voted in by a huge percentage of the population.
            How about you ask China to get rid of their numerous nuclear submarines. If you get the Chinese to get rid of their subs i will be there handing out pamphlets for you on election day.

            • GG57 on 17/03/2023 - 10:46

              @DarwinBoy:

              Becuase this plan is backed by Labor and Liberal and they have been voted in by a huge percentage of the population.

              I don't recall this huge expense, and military direction, being an election issue. As you say, both parties support it (at least with Labor the costs are revealed, if only an estimate).
              And, unfortunately, it is a long time until the next federal election and this will be forgotten by the majority of voters.

              • DarwinBoy on 17/03/2023 - 10:50

                @GG57: ANKUS was on the radar before the last election. Voting for the greens would of expressed opposition to the matter. Greens hate nukes no matter what form they take.

            • Protractor on 17/03/2023 - 10:52

              @DarwinBoy: We are in an alliance with the USA because that's what America wants for power and money.
              The alliance is based on archaic circumstances. The govt tells Keating the world has changed, and yet they remain bedded in 1945 mindset
              On Bauxite alone, we are a US honey pot. Obviously we are cultural and ideologically different to China. That's a no brainer. The US also want all our precious metal and rare earths stash. We could have traded that with China too, to keep them at the table for decades.
              You don't think the Yanks were dominant in the wording of the NPT?
              Lucas heights protest point is a Furphy. The scale and benefits of medical uranium are indisputable and minuscule compared to power and weaponry. The issue is not a simplistic binary one.
              Not a single person was afforded and hint as to the cost and risk of the massive US takeover of our economy, and our future.Nor were we warned that the massive number of subs, downstream spent uranium, and the inevitable nuclear power was coming our way via the 'we may as well now' mentality. This is nothing short of a direct deception based betrayal of Australian citizens and sovereignty driven by American interests. America owns our arse. We have lost the right to mutter the words autonomy, Independence or sovereignty any more.
              Labor are a pathetic Trojan Horse for Peter Duttons nightmare end game.
              I predict a bigger element of teals at the next election.

  • duluxe2000 on 16/03/2023 - 01:19
    -3

    After reading through 3 pages of comments @AustriaBargain's argument is the most convincing so I casted my vote.

    I would add to that argument that this current world order greatly benefits Australia so Australia should chip in to maintain it (think about why tf everyone learns English as opposed to learn Chinese for example)

    The politicians are not great at solution but they are excel at who they should be friends with n how. This deal's most practical benefit is to strengthen our relationship with our most trustes allies n as a deterrent to growing power/resentment from emerging powers.

  • serideth on 16/03/2023 - 02:15
    +2

    • Do we need submarines?
      Yes, as long as we want an effective defence force and would like to remain the dominant military power in SEA we need an effective submarine force. Bring an island makes subs an obvious choice and nuclear powered subs have a host of advantages to conventional powered boats. There is a reason 2 of the 5 permanent security council members solely rely on subs for their nuclear deterrence, even though our subs are not armed with nukes having them have effectively infinite endurance and with the stealthiness of the US/UK subs it is an good force multiplier.

    • It costs a lot
      Yes it does. I think it comes down to 11B a year, which is not cheap but on the flip side we aren’t buying bargain goods. The US and UK arguably have the best tech in nuclear subs right now and the cost also includes infrastructure and personnel to support the project. If Labor’s super changes get passed after the next election that would already cover about 20% of the annual cost covered so there’s that. Whether or not it’s worth it can only be judged after.

    • Nuclear treaties
      The subs are only to be nuclear powered not nuclear armed. The treaties specifically only target nuclear weapons so no issues there. And I seriously doubt having nuclear subs makes us a target for anyone, Australia is already a country with the technical capability to be a nuclear armed state but choose not to be.

    • Nuclear waste
      We already store nuclear waste even for other countries like the UK. I’m some aspects we are perfectly situated to be able to safely store radioactive waste, we are a large, sparsely populated island that is relatively geologically stable.

    Personally I think the investment into the nuclear infrastructure to maintain the subs would be the biggest gain as it may lead to renewed efforts for nuclear power. With the climate crisis and political unrest globally and rising energy energy demands, nuclear I think is still the best solution for bulk power generation and Australia’s geography makes it ideal for nuclear power.

    • Prosp24 on 16/03/2023 - 10:31

      Only if a decision like stage 3 tax cuts are wound back to pay for it.

      • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 18:08

        I suppose you complain about paying tax to support schools and hospitals as well ?

        • Prosp24 on 16/03/2023 - 21:28
          +1

          No, but i do complain when theres an additional $250 billion worth of tax cuts about to go to the rich over the next 10 years.

          While everyday people are struggling with food, housing, healthcare, and surprise schools and hospitals are underfunded.

          • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 21:29

            @Prosp24: Im just suggesting that people be honest, the only thing they really care is that they dont pay for it, and that they stop pretending they understand world politics or have special information.

  • Thaal Sinestro on 16/03/2023 - 02:55
    +9

    It sickens me the way Western countries are going out of their way to provoke China. They were on top once, now the are in decline and China has become dominant. Westerns just cannot handle this fact and want to bring China down. Look at all we import from China, and then ask, what does Australia make other than overpriced low quality housing?

    Australians, instead of warmongering, learn to accept and to live with China.

    Every dollar spent on defense is a dollar wasted, a dollar that could have been spent of assisting the poor instead.

    • lostgoat on 16/03/2023 - 06:15
      +1

      Really . Who been claiming disputed reefs and is building military bases ? And they say its fake news when all can see the satellite pictures

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join