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

      • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 09:34
        +5

        Claiming disputed reefs? All those SEA countries are bickering about reefs.
        How many miltary bases around the world does US have? Is that okay?

        Such nonsense outrage, has china attacked any of their neighbouring countries? How many American soldiers have died with the US patch fighting invisible boogeymen? Over 6,000 have died fighting two stupid wars. How many innocent lives have been taken ?!

        Simply ridiculous. China bad derp

      • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 13:06
        +1

        Who been claiming disputed reefs (USA. A reef outlier called Straya)

        and is building military bases (see above) (Darwin is Pearl Harbour II)

        The bases in WA,QLD etc are car-parks for nuke powered and weaponized US /UK subs and will be forever.
        There'll be almost every US nuke sub anywhere but near them. Smart,innit?

        Maybe covid (twice) sucked Albos brain out of his American pencil sharpener, and neutralised all his long held principles to boot?
        What a toadying sycophantic shape-shifter he is. Trying to out-coalition the coalition just to hold on to power.
        Tick
        As for Wong, OMG any way the wind blows as long as she is in focus.

    • matt-ozb on 16/03/2023 - 06:54

      Why help the poor people that have had an easy life and not wasted their most precious time of their life at University and sitting in an office?

      The poor people should work harder .. not get free benefits at the expense of those who have wasted their life sitting in an office

    • Motek Benzona on 16/03/2023 - 08:13
      +5

      At least possibly buy 18 submarines and plough the rest into helping the working homeless. The mere fact that people can say this kind of spend is ok when their neighbours are possibly about to be on the street show just how f'd up this planet is.

      My kids school are going to stop printing a single sheet of homework each week because of budget issues. I got the email 3 days ago but… WE ALREADY PAY FOR OUR OWN PAPER AT THE SCHOOL!!!

      Think about that….

      God bless the submarine contracts

      Defence or no defence its a gross waste of PUBLIC money when all the other stuff is going on post covid,

      Oh, and spot on about the provocation.. the propaganda is in overdrive. Goebbels has nothing on these people. In comparison he was a beginner

      • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 18:09

        DO you know whats even a bigger waste of money ?

        Hospitals!

        Who cares if people die in accidents or get cancer, its more important we save YOUR TAX money…

    • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 08:58
      +2

      lol that's pretty funny that our comparatively minuscule spending on defence is a 'provocation'.

      Maybe China should stop building up their military, ever think of that?

    • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 09:10
      +2

      @Thaal Sinestro
      Sorry but this is incredibly ignorant on many levels.

      You cannot live with China - you have to live under China's rules. Go look up the list of rules that the Chinese Govt gave to the Australian Govt only last year with recommendations from them as to how the two nations can get along better. It's by their rules or else.

      Look at the Uyghur people and whats happened to them. Hong Kong people etc - no end of examples.

      It's not as simple as saying it's either live at peace or warmongering - thats incredibly naive of you. There are countless levels between these, both of which are equally bad once you know the realities of them.

      • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 09:36
        +4

        Uyghur people? have you even stepped foot there?
        What should China do? Should they bomb them like Americans did?

        What happened to HK? They seem to be living peacefully. Perhaps you should compare to the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan, the US did some good work there lmaooooo

        • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 09:44

          Zero substance - a whole bunch of completely idiotic comments phrased as questions. One does not need to have stepped foot there to know - hundreds of individual reports, 3rd party reports from UN, Amnesty Intl etc - and even if you did set foot there, the Chinese Govt has been documented stopping any foreigners from getting near these huge 'reeducation centres' (cough cough concentration camps!)

          Perhaps do some reading by experts in the area and make examples that are vaguely comparable - not apples with oranges.

          • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 11:27
            +1

            @Daniel Plainview: So how many people are in re-education centers? Please, i'd love to hear these made up numbers with zero basis.
            These numbers have been debunked so many times. These so called experts are typing away on their armchairs, NOT from China.
            There is not a single shred of evidence of millions of people in camps, have you even thought about the logistics to keep millions of people in detention camps? That's the whole state of VICTORIA.

            Perhaps you should jump on a plane and you see it yourself, plenty of mosques, open display of religions, plenty of prayers played throughout the city. You have no clue. You've never been to china, you've never encountered a person from xinjiang, you've not even seen anything.

            You're incoherent, making things up and believe fake numbers. This is akin to believing people saying that Australians treat the indigenous people poorly and pushing them to living in the bush where they have no resources and no infrastrcture. All geopolitical nonsense.

            • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 11:32

              @TightAl: As I said before you slow learner - go and read the countless reports from independent 3rd parties who are experts in this area.

              Of course you will know better than the UN, Amnesty Intl etc - not to mention the thousands of individuals from all around the world who have documented these matters.

              You are a very simple person - making a lot of assumptions. I think if the truth was to be known you've something of an axe to grind on this matter - but unlike you I will not assume.

              I don't pretend to know better than the UN, Amnesty Intl etc - so thanks all the same but I will go with their expertise rather than yours. ;-)

              • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 11:33
                +4

                @Daniel Plainview: Who funds these 'independent 3rd parties'? Why dont you send me some links you fast learner.
                You're someone who has absoutely zero clue, believing what you read because people write things with zero bias and objective LOL. Joker.
                China should take a leaf out of Americas handbook, here are some stats for you since you've got selective reading:
                Over 929,000 people have died in the post-9/11 wars due to direct war violence, and several times as many due to the reverberating effects of war
                Over 387,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting
                38 million — the number of war refugees and displaced persons
                The U.S. federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $8 trillion
                The U.S. government is conducting counterterror activities in 85 countries
                The wars have been accompanied by violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the U.S. and abroad

                Don't provide me bs rhetoric with no basis, this is the biggest muslim genocide the world has seen. Why dont you talk about this? Because you don't actually CARE, thats the truth.

                • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 11:52

                  @TightAl: Touched a nerve did I? Oh of course the UN, Amnesty etc are all liars. No-one can be trusted except the actual party who's committing the crime. Take a moment to consider how preposterous such a comment is - but you won't you'll just scream louder. Yawn…..

                  You know we're talking about subs here - not sure how you're referencing 9/11, middle east etc. Your argument sucks but going off on tangents hardly helps.

                  People who quote figures and don't reference them usually do so either as they're stupid or have something to hide. You can figure out which one (or both?) apply to yourself.

                  Maybe try and stay vaguely on topic - we'll all get more out of it than your 'Little Red Book' rantings. ;-)

                  • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 11:55
                    +2

                    @Daniel Plainview: You mentioned HK and Ugyhurs on a post about subs LOL, you got us all bro.
                    Love all theself righteous posters who tell people to do ReSeArCH as a reply. All those stats were lifted from Ivy league university, verified in 10 seconds. Shows your kind of ReSeaRCh. You're just a facade.

                    • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 14:05

                      @TightAl: Oh my you are very slow of foot on the cerebral front - the difference is I mentioned those as it pertains to China & comments that they had no aggressive aspirations & essentially could be trusted. Whereas your rationale for referencing the middle east is lets just say a tad more tenous…at best.

                      See hi to Mao for me - and maybe provide references for your 'facts' or perhaps leave to the adults. ;-)

                      • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 14:15
                        +1

                        @Daniel Plainview: Ok Uncle Tom, predictable, you're running from it all. No subtance.
                        Do some ReSeaRCh next time, you'll actually provide a coherent stance.

                        • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 14:39

                          @TightAl: Uncle Tom? I think you need to brush up a tad on your 'attempted' jibes. You're again thinking you're much smarter, than you actually are (I suspect a common theme in your life?).

                          No substance or research and incoherent? To you I am sure it was. but again you're the guy who knows better than the UN etc - so a lil minnow like me next your 'galaxy brain'.

                          I draw solace knowing you're hear just being ignorant and annoying rather than out causing real issues in the world. Cheers for the giggles at your 'wisdom' & insights.

                          • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 15:24

                            @Daniel Plainview: So many insults, so little substance. You got me again.
                            Real issues like the real muslim genocide that you don't care to mention LoL

                • ThithLord on 16/03/2023 - 15:16
                  +2

                  @TightAl:

                  Over 929,000 people have died in the post-9/11 wars due to direct war violence, and several times as many due to the reverberating effects of war
                  Over 387,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting
                  38 million — the number of war refugees and displaced persons
                  The U.S. federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $8 trillion
                  The U.S. government is conducting counterterror activities in 85 countries

                  But … but the Uyghurs … the Uyghur people ….

                  Nikko cngaff about the Uyghur people, either. That's why I always bitterly laugh about people who point to ChYnA RE: Uyghur people.

                  They don't give an eff about the Uyghur people, it's just a political football for them to use

                  • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 15:38

                    @ThithLord: People who preport to speak on behalf of others probably are completely full of shyte. So please don't pretend to know what I feel - I can express that for myself reasonably well.

    • serideth on 16/03/2023 - 09:32

      National security is a core responsibility and/or right of any Government.

      Defence spending is actually a big driver of innovation and generally creates more jobs and opportunities, most of the goods and luxuries you enjoy were developed initially for military purposes.

      And saying that the money should go to to helping the poor instead, how do you propose that to work. If you distribute the 11B this project costs annually amongst the Australian population that's about $450 per person a year.

      This spending is not at the expense of social services.

  • franco cozzo on 16/03/2023 - 04:10
    +6

    surely we can get these cheaper on aliexpress?

    • ThithLord on 16/03/2023 - 15:19
      +1

      m8 I don't think they even checked OzBargain

  • TSH on 16/03/2023 - 08:22
    +5

    With the Chinese government owning most of Australia's prime real estate and food supply,
    it would make no sense to start a conflict and destroy what they have built up over the last few decades.

  • afah0447 on 16/03/2023 - 08:22
    +2

    The world is talking itself into a war in the next few years, that is now inevitable given what China has said on the record about Taiwan and Russian's actions in Ukraine.

    The real problem is that the LNP had 9yrs of dithering, inaction and playing politics instead of getting this project underway much sooner.

    History will remember the last 9yrs as wasted on so many fronts when we should have been building the nation.

    • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 08:48
      +2

      To be fair it's a LOT longer than 9yrs. The Collins class boats were an epic disaster from the very get go. Read the wikipedia, during their construction they had such issues experts advised to stop the project and sell the hulls for scrap metal!

      So prior to 2000 experts knew we needed replacements for these. Thats nearly 25yrs. And there's a 2009 Govt White paper giving feedback on what the new subs should be like.

      As with many part of our military we have a MAJOR issue repeatedly buying incredibly expensive US military gear. I have no issue saying it's overall the best stuff - but for our lesser needs, much cheaper items will do 90% of the work at 1/3 of the price etc.

      I used to work in a corporate field in Canberra and the lobbying, wining & dining etc the big defence firms do with govt, military etc is through the roof. Very dodgy & the decision makers go with 'whatever Uncle Sam wants us to buy' so we can be like them, except our needs are very different & our pockets are nowhere near as deep.

    • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 08:50

      that is now inevitable given what China has said on the record about Taiwan and Russian's actions in Ukraine.

      Not inevitable at all.

      Hopefully China can look at the disaster Putin has inflicted on Russia and realise what a terrible miscalculation it was.

  • Sinnerator on 16/03/2023 - 08:27
    +9

    Please remember all government contracts are PRIMARILY their to siphon money to the rich, the details are irrelevant.

    • lostgoat on 16/03/2023 - 08:37
      +1

      I thought. it was a secret hehe .

  • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 08:40
    +6

    Very interesting article on the SMH this morning which says exactly what I said last night - that we're gambling a HUGE amount on a technology that strong indications show will be significantly obselete by the time they arrive:
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-ve-bet-everything…

    My 2c bet on this sphere is that China will develop unmanned underwater killer drones - that are able to be dropped and wait for very long periods for objects like subs to pass within their range. Once detected they send an alert and also attempt to destroy the object. Like the equivalent of FPV drones we're now seeing in Ukraine & the semi-autonomous drones like the Switchblade series the US has.

    Those combined with a massive number of intelligent sea mines (which are able to be dropped and remain for years undetected, and can tell which vessels to attack/or not) will mean like in Ukraine with Russian main battle tanks, we're seeing a very cheap weapon used to devastating effect on a very expensive weapon - but on a much, much greater scale.

    We've been struggling to make a decision on new subs for over 20yrs, as the Collins class fiasco told all we needed a replacement. Abbott wanted to spend $20B on Japanese subs, then Turnbull agreed to spend $40B on French subs and now this epic escalation to a $370B for 8 completely untested subs (delays? cost overruns? issues?) and 3-5 thoroughly used and replaced by their new subs, from the yanks.

    I'm sorry to say it but I think whoever made these decisions for us was wined & dined or charmed by our powerful allies assurances we had to have their stuff - when really much more modest of the shelf versions would have been 90% as good, delivered decades earlier & at a tiny fraction of the total cost. Disasterous deal on nearly every level.

    • lostgoat on 16/03/2023 - 08:46
      +3

      Get the best minds to figure out an anti sub drone eg a jet full of 1000's of them drop them in the zone where you think they are or where you war ships are heading . The 400 bil spend is a joke . They are surely working on it now . Drones really have `~ed up Subs power of the past and we are the last ones to realize it

      • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 08:59
        +3

        Agree.

        Doesn't take a very big explosive charge to significantly compromise the pressure hulls at decent underwater depths. As the Ukrainians have found, you can afford to throw many much cheaper weapons (i.e $1000 drone used as a 'kamikaze' with RPG warhead or RPG-3 HEAT grenade sprapped to it) to crash into a near top of the line Russian MBT (T-90M estimated current cost $USD7-9m).

        For those doing the maths thats several thousands times as much hardware destroyed by perhaps a $USD1500 outlay - so you can do this many times before you get lucky.

        Except these new subs cost effectively (in total outlay) $35 - 50B each!!! So imagine how many drone hunter killers or semi-autonomous sea mines China, who's cashed up far beyond us will quite happily sow in order to just take down a few of them.

        And rest assured WHEN (not if) one of these subs is lost - it'll result in the Govt overriding the military and pulling all of them back to safer home waters. We should be learnign from OS conflicts & trying to get out ahead of it & military trends, not overreacting to dozing at the wheel for 20yrs+ by blowing our entire wad on what our rich cousins have had for decades.

    • serideth on 16/03/2023 - 09:46
      +1

      That article is an opinion piece, from someone a technical background or military background.

      Even the Virginia subs being bought from the US in 2030 are still going to be expected to be operational for the Americans well into the 2060's so where are your doubts about longevity coming from.

      There is a reason we have better maps of the Moon and Mars then we do of our oceans because we are being limited by physics and material science. And unless paradigm shifting breakthroughs come in either fields nothing will change with that respect. It is hard to see under the water, it's even harder to send wireless signals through the water. Any "unmanned killer drones" will need to be self sufficient which means electric, there is no way to store enough electricity for an extended mission. The more batteries you back the heavier it gets and the more ballast is needed unless you want it to sink to the ocean floor.

      So basically, there's no way to power your killer drones and no way to communicate with it. If you know of any developments in either area happy to reconsider.

      • Hardly Normal on 18/03/2023 - 18:08

        Quality comment. Anything we see in this field will need a supporting ship/boat to give it range. At least until a new technology breakthrough is achieved.

  • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 08:45

    Yes. They should be nuclear armed too imho.

    I hope they have the capacity to add that at a later date.

    • Daniel Plainview on 16/03/2023 - 09:05

      They do, the launch tubes can be used for all manner of munitions.

      I don't think we need nukes, there's already many fold more in the world thans needed to ensure we all die a very nasty death - and if you think these boats are expensive imagine that palava. Plus Ignorant Joe Public can't even stomach having a nuclear waste facility for low grade nuclear waste - so imagine the overreaction to that.

      But want to spend a lot of military drones, surface to air missile systems, anti-ship missiles, high mobility vehicles with autocannons & ATGM systems. Tack on a bunch of off the shelf German, Japanese or Swedish subs etc - could get all that for a fraction of these 'Franken-subs'. Go figure.

  • cycleri3 on 16/03/2023 - 09:45
    +3

    Waste of money.. cheaper to get allies to keep their military base here.

    • Kamsi on 16/03/2023 - 10:02
      +2

      Cheaper to implement a anti missiles or missiles requirements than a nuclear subs.

  • Eeples on 16/03/2023 - 10:23
    +5

    I agree with Keating.

    Should have just bought replacements subs for the Collins class subs. (45 of them for the same money; perhaps only get 21 and save $200 billion).

    The nuclear subs are too big for Australian shallow waters. (And so can be seen from space making an easy target).

    This informs me that the subs aren’t to protect Australia directly but to sit off Taiwan as if they were American.

  • DazMon on 16/03/2023 - 10:48

    We probably should have spent the money on more F-35s…

  • fr33loader on 16/03/2023 - 11:00
    +2

    I am for that we are modernizing our military equipment. I am even for Australia having nuclear weapons.

    The price though, is too much. Did not expect it to baloon that much.

    Against a nation like China… Yeah nah, it's no match. China can easily Zerg-Rush Australia and claim our country even before the world would know what to do.

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

    The USA is like a physically and financially abusive ex who forces Australia into more and more wars that she didn't want (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan wars), without regard to or consulting the Australian electorate.

    Given our Government and particularly Defence's history of blowing out whatever budget we set by 2 to 3 times (like the Collins-class submarines), the $368 billions budget is more likely to be $1 trillions by the end of the day. Australia will likely be very broke by then, and income taxes on future generations of Australians will likely be closer to 60% to pay this debt to our 'allies' the US and UK.

    Complete cognitive dissonance at the ABC newsroom today as they reported the Australian Council of Social Service proposed 60 more taxes on Aussie taxpayers to just to fund the burgeoning aged care budgets, while in the same breath as they proclaimed the billion dollars AUKUS subs deal.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-16/acoss-tax-superannuat…

    Ignore the fact that having Offensive nuclear weapons (rather than a Defensive posture) is more likely to bring us closer to war with China and legitimise the use of Chinese hypersonic nuclear weapons against Australia in the event we become the next proxy battleground between USA and China (think Ukraine).

    Think of what $368,000,000,000 ($368 billion) to $1,000,000,000,000 ($1 trillion) could potentially solve within Australia if put to good use:
    -social housing
    -Centrelink
    -NDIS
    -Medicare
    -Bulkbill GPs, physios, pyschologists
    -subsidising university fees
    -investing in Australia's domestic manufacturing industry (eg, bringing back Holden who was killed off by the Americans)
    -removing the new Labor superannuation taxes, and whatever new taxes they dream up of to pay this US/UK debt

    • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 12:13

      legitimise the use of Chinese hypersonic nuclear weapons against Australia

      If China ever threatened this, or there was even a sniff of this eventuality, then we would also arm ourselves with nukes.

      China knows this, and that's why they don't threaten other countries with nukes. In fact the complete opposite.

      They pledge "to not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances" and "not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapons states or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

      • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 12:34
        +3

        Sorry mate I think you are labouring under the misapprehension of viewing China under American-centric lens. Aside from Taiwan which it views as a renegade province, China has been relatively peaceful in its rise to the world stage compared to the US. The only similarities between the US and China are that they are both modern-day great powers, and it ends there. In terms of the propensity to war, the US stands dominant as the single country in its short history to become responsible for the most global wars after WW2 ended.

        China already has hypersonic missiles for which there are no defences, not even the Israeli's Iron Dome, and stationing American nuclear subs and their bases in Australia legitimises them as targets since they pose a direct threat to the Chinese mainland with their nuclear far strike capability.

        I'll take any no first use policy by US or China with a very large pinch of salt.

        • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 12:43

          Yeah there is no defence, not for China either though.

          That's why you need a good offence especially if we are ever threatened directly, we would have to get some nukes asap :)

      • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 14:03

        Yeah nah. If your logic stood up it would apply to Russia. Putin would use nukes in a heartbeat, and he still has time and motivation. Namely his end is in sight, and he has the motivation and insanity. He is the second most dangerous Russian/Trump loyalist on earth.

  • Nedward on 16/03/2023 - 11:20

    I think it's a step in right direction and the current global landscape highlights how stupid it was for the liberal government to essentially sell the Port of Darwin to the Chinese Communist Party

    • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 14:09
      +1

      Not sold, leased. We will get it back before we get the subs. 90 odd years away. By then, we could build the subs in Alice Springs and launch them on the high tide.

      PS, There's no longer a need to differentiate between the Libs and the ALP. In todays climate Albo would double the lease life. The real point is sovereignty. We have none any more. The traitors in Canberra are crawling ever closer to illegitimacy. I actually think such is the mistrust (warranted) of politicians generally, I cannot see the voice referendum getting up at all.
      There should be a question on it now asking if we support AUKUS. ( BUT! The Yanks would rig the vote)

  • TightAl on 16/03/2023 - 11:37
    +1

    Can anyone let me know which US companies are building these subs?
    I need to invest my money ASAP

    • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 11:59
      +1

      Just buy whatever US politicians like Nancy Pelosi buys and you make a pretty mint. Insider trading laws doesn't apply to them.

    • Eeples on 16/03/2023 - 14:36

      It is important to follow the money.

      It would be great if the govt came clean on any side deals to finance this purchase.

      For example is Australia required to borrow in the USA to finance the deal ?

      • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 14:55

        To finance this deal, Labor is already raiding our superannuation retirement sum for this. This financially affects all present and future gens of Aussies.

        • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 14:57
          +1

          I wasn't aware of that, but I don't see how that could be the case?

          • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 15:01
            -1

            @GG57: They are already looking to raise taxes and cut social spendings for everyday Aussies to pay for these subs.

            From introducing a new tax on super, wine and sugary drinks to broadening the Medicare levy, the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has outlined how it thinks the government should collect more money.

            ACOSS suggests superannuation, wine and soft drink tax changes
            https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-16/acoss-tax-superannuat…

            Chalmers has announced changes to superannuation tax concessions. Could capital gains tax be next?
            https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-15/tax-capital-gains-sup…

            • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 15:08
              +2

              @xdigger: Ah, you are referring to a reduction in the taxation subsidy for those with high levels of superannuation. From memory it was a very small (elite) percentage of the population.
              Not exactly "…raiding our superannuation retirement sum…"?

              • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 15:10
                -1

                @GG57: Mate if they stopped at that (not move the threshold Lower to capture more Australians) when they realise they need more money to pay for a ever increasing federal budget, let just say I would think pigs would fly then.

                • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 15:12
                  +1

                  @xdigger: They may I suppose; they may not as well.
                  My reading is that the vast majority of the population didn't have a problem with it. It would be political suicide to lower the threshold.

                • Eeples on 16/03/2023 - 17:21
                  +1

                  @xdigger: But this whole sub thing is supported/started by the Liberals.

                  So regardless of who is in power both parties will be looking to raise more taxes and/or reduce services.

                  You can’t tell me Liberals don’t have in their sights; Medicare, NDIS or Super and a broadening of the GST.

                  Maybe this will supercharge tax reform.

                  Or maybe it will supercharge the welfare system…..‘Unexempting’ the family home might be a start.

                  Ps. The first person to mention death duties loses this debate 😀

                  • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 19:31
                    +1

                    @Eeples: You're right, present and future Australian generations will suffer the consequences of higher taxes and reduce services. When you cannot get into a full public Emergency Dept at 12am for your very sick toddler, would you have thought if these nuclear subs were worth it?

  • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 12:02
    +2

    Given our Government and particularly Defence's history of blowing out whatever budget we set by 2 to 3 times (like the Collins-class submarines), the $368 billions budget is more likely to be $1 trillions by the end of the day. Australia will likely be very broke by then, and income taxes on future generations of Australians will likely be closer to 60%.

    We will very likely lose universal free healthcare by the end of this decade.

    • mr fox on 16/03/2023 - 13:29

      We blow the budget because we insist on customising products for our 'unique' requirements. These subs ought to be off the shelf and therefore less likely to have cost blow outs.

      • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 13:40

        No tinted windows?

      • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 19:44

        There are no off the shelf for big projects.

        Sydney Harbour Bridge was not off the shelf because guess what every bridge in the world is built to different requirements. Different length, different ground, different available equipment and more.

        Replace bridge with any other big project you can think there are always customisations because every city and country is not a cookie cut of somewhere else. We are all different to some extent.

        This is not buying a phone or xbox. Grow up.

  • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 12:19

    Most Australians are not for this submarines deal given the very likely trade off of the lost of free healthcare and much higher taxes needed to pay for this.

    Its a sad day for Australian democracy when despite the electorate being against a bad idea the Labor government still seemingly pushes for it. How are we different from a dictatorship, and what democratic values are those submarines supposed to protect when we have a government that goes against the wishes of its people? I hope the irony is not lost on those who supports this. For the taxpayers amongst us there are so many things we take for granted now like free and timely healthcare we will have to give up as there's simply no way to pay for all of it in the federal budget, and for those on social welfare there will most definitely be a drop to standards of living within the decade.

  • mrhugo on 16/03/2023 - 12:24
    +1

    I'm sure everyone on OzB would be for it, if we could

    a) buy with discounted giftcards.
    b) stack with coupons
    c) get CR or SB with no caps.
    d) it was a pricing error and it was honered.

    People are just pee'ed because there was none of the above.

  • 82norm on 16/03/2023 - 12:44

    So what happens if China invades us in the next 5 years….. ?
    Just think, Musk, Bezos, Gates could pay for all of this.

  • Terocket on 16/03/2023 - 12:50
    +1

    Just feels like the US is calling in its favours to create an idea of the free western worlds are to be formed into what the US believes is a strong and united bloc against China Inc. Australia possibly has no choice but jump on command to keep up this appearance and for the continuing US patronage.

    If I am not mistaken, a large portion of our current military hardware is from the US and/or US origin, we need to have supply of parts and maintenance.

    In regards to an attack on the US attempting to defend Taiwan, I am hard pressed to visualise China doing so, given US will be calling on its NATO allies and opening up multiple fronts - military and economic. Surely China would be seeing now how Russia is being dealt with treated by the West with Russia invading a non-aligned country and realises it will be much worse for China if it actually threatens/attacks any country within the US-bloc

    For the chinese who understand economics very well, starting a war that has a potential to disrupt local economies and lay ground work for local uprisings to get rid of the communists and get in democratic reforms is still a risk (especially if it drags on and non-winnable) that it will hopefully prefer to avoid.

    If I had to guess, best bet for China would be to squeeze Taiwan economically and attempt to get concessions to eventually take over the country - install pro-China pollies and then have a referendum for Taiwan to be merged with the motherland

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

    I would have preferred if we bought 50% of our submarines from the AUKUS and 50% from China and Russia.
    That would confuse the shit out of our enemies.

    • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 13:19

      An excellent proposal. Provides lots of risk mitigation too.

    • NoMoneyNoCry on 16/03/2023 - 15:30

      Very funny. But that will never happen. Aus Gov are even getting rid of CCTV made from China.

  • FlyingMiffy on 16/03/2023 - 13:31
    +4

    The idea of spending 368b over 30 years for submarines that we wont get for another 10 to 15 years against a neighbour that is better resourced… yeah nah. To top it off, the real arm wrestle is between China and the US, the US is using us to contain a competitor in a region that is not theirs. The last time someone tried to do that to the US (Cuban missle crisis) it led to the cold war. Hypocrisy and bad policy rolled into one.

    The only real reason for nuclear subs is distance and ability to operate in water for extended periods, sure we have a big boarder but by the time the Chinese Armada arrives, they would have passed, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia… if we cant see them that far away, we have bigger problems. Keating is on the money.

    • Aureus on 16/03/2023 - 13:37

      No one thinks Australia could take on China 1v1, and that isn't the intent of the sub purchase.

      • FlyingMiffy on 16/03/2023 - 14:01
        +1

        Please do share the intent. I think the pollies themselves are going to struggle… no one is going to like that 368b is the price of an "alliance" manufactured by the very ally that are the main beneficiaries of the deal and its NOT us!!!

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

          If we didn't have these alliances we would be spending a lot more on defense and we would be in a worse position.

          Are you suggesting we buy diesel subs that are not fit for purpose, or just scrap our subs and leech off our allies?

          • Eeples on 16/03/2023 - 14:40

            @Aureus: What purpose?

            Hang around Taiwan or hang around Australia ?

            • Aureus on 16/03/2023 - 14:43

              @Eeples: I dunno. Probably somewhere in the ocean.

              • Eeples on 16/03/2023 - 16:02
                +1

                @Aureus: I was being serious.

                Big subs in Australian shallow water are hard to hide. And big subs hanging around Taiwan are American subs by proxy.

                • Aureus on 16/03/2023 - 16:08

                  @Eeples: It isn't something I know enough about to answer.

                  • FlyingMiffy on 16/03/2023 - 16:41
                    +1

                    @Aureus: But apparently you know about the intent! And what position are you talking about, a pawn in Oceania for the US? Anyone with half a brain will work out that the money is better spent on partnerships with NZ and Indonesia - our closest neighbours and actually in our region!!!

                    • Aureus on 16/03/2023 - 16:53

                      @FlyingMiffy: Yeah. I know more about stuff that is public, then I do about classified navel intelligence.

            • FlyingMiffy on 16/03/2023 - 16:43
              +1

              @Eeples: The yanks have it worked out. They get 368b while they palm off old gear to us and then have us man them and do their dirty work.

  • NoMoneyNoCry on 16/03/2023 - 13:32
    +6

    Imagine what humans can achieve if we all get along and put aside our differences. Imagine a world where US and China collaborated and work together for the better good of humanity.

    • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 13:46
      +4

      Agreed, it is unfortunate that the US has always been aggressive since its bloody founding days. Rather than negotiate an end to the Ukraine war, the US has gotten NATO to push more weapons to the battlefield, while at very least even though its terribly flawed China has proposed a peace deal.

      Our pro-American Murdoch media may not have reported this, but China had brokered Saudi Arabia and Iran to sign a peace deal recently, potentially bringing about peace to the Middle East not seen for decades in the region.

      • Aureus on 16/03/2023 - 14:23
        -1

        🙄

      • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 17:41
        +1

        how would you of made Putin leave Ukraine? what would you of given him Chamberlain?

    • Creamsoda on 16/03/2023 - 15:21
      +3

      Imagine if US put forth a peace deal between Taiwan and China with a frame work like the 92 consensus, rather than supporting a Pro-Independence government in Taiwan and arming them with gear for urban warfare.

      • Aureus on 16/03/2023 - 19:35

        "Pro-Independence government". They have been effectively independent for almost 75 years. Most people in Taiwan were born after that and have never lived under Chinese rule.

        Taiwanese people don't want to be unified with China. The only way unification will happen is through force, so it is a good thing some countries are sticking up for people of Taiwan's democratic right of choice.

        I assume you also support Australia/UK unification?

  • seraphim2017 on 16/03/2023 - 13:55

    They are not for use. They are a deterrent. They aren't even really for area denial to hostile forces. The fact they exist, are nuclear capable, and could retailiate, is their primary purpose way to make potential aggressors pause (unless they're insane of course). UUVs with decent AI within 30 years will litter the oceans searching for them anyway, so by the time we get whatever we get, we could have theoretically created a home grown capability. It's also to ensure. 'murica aids us in conflict to preserve their assets.

    • FlyingMiffy on 16/03/2023 - 14:03
      +1

      OK… I think the bigger deterrent would be reducing annual trade by 368b.

      • seraphim2017 on 16/03/2023 - 14:08
        +1

        I didn't say I agreed with buying subs now to deliver in 20+ years either, I'm sure there would be a lot of other worthy uses for it in health and education and infrastructure. Just that they're not really for use. I'd rather see 368bn over 25+ years go into state schools to reverse Australias race to the bottom education sector and address tall poppy attitudes to success, and make us a top tier brains trust.

        • FlyingMiffy on 16/03/2023 - 14:13
          +3

          I like your thinking… too bad the pollies have been taken to dinners too often at the Whitehouse.

  • Speckled Jim on 16/03/2023 - 13:59
    +2

    For the record, I'm 100% with PK on this, as far as the advantages related to greater numbers of conventional vessels as opposed to reactor-equipped ones.

    My sub experience is purely civilian, but I know their basics (and a few specifics) as I've worked alongside retired and serving Naval personnel in the 90s.
    Oberon subs were adapted British vessels, and the Collins were considerably bigger (length + beam). Collins was a Swedish (Kockums) design adapted to our operational requirements.

    It broadly mirrors consumer preference for bigger and bigger motor vehicles. So, Bigger = better? Collins torpedoed that in some areas. Whatever monstrosity we end up with, I hope the sharpest minds make the best of them.

    • Speckled Jim on 17/03/2023 - 09:13

      @klonky why did you delete your comment? It was a reasonable statement. I agree that possible diesel supply issues could disrupt our capability.
      It would take careful management, including supply deals with close allies.

  • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 14:19

    Its amazing how many people think they know which subs australia should or shouldnt buy.

    Whats next they also know what equipment brain surgeons should or shouldnt buy ?

    • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 16:40
      +3

      And it's depressing to think how many apathetic people there are who couldn't care less. You don't have to be a sub expert to smell an expensive hot steaming turd deal, and a sacrifice of our sovereignty. Every other detail aside, this is the very decision the citizens of this country should be afforded the right to reject if they so choose. We were not asked for a reason. And neither that fact, nor the claimed reasoning for the decision, are justified. None of the decision makers have a thing to lose, we have everything to lose and strategically this decision puts us closer to that 'everything', than had we done nothing.

      • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 17:10

        protractor: None of the decision makers have a thing to lose, we have everything to lose and strategically this decision puts us closer to that 'everything', than had we done nothing.

        cow: Strange i thought they were Australians as well who lived in Australia and have family and friends they care about.

        What a dumb thing to say, of course they care, they are Australians just like you or me.

        ~

        pro: We were not asked for a reason.

        Cow:
        Do you. go around telling the tunnel builders in Sydney what equipment to buy and how to set it up ?

        Do you tell the Airbus and Boeing how to design and build their planes ?

        Do you tell surgeons what equipment to buy and books to read ?

        What do you know about submarines ? Do you have any naval experience of any kind ? Do you understand how to operate a sub and what they can and cant do ?

        Well you shouldnt because you dont know shite about those topics.

        Problem with idiots they think they know everything but they know nothing.

        I suppose you dont goto the doctor because you know everything about medicine and surgery right ? You tell the surgeon how to do their job dont you ?

        Of course you shouldnt let the experts do their job because you can be sure you and me would do it far worse.

        • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 20:06

          Gees got me there cowpigstork
          Such worldly intellectual counter arguments. Interlaced with little nuggets of high school bus back seat dross.
          What you lack in counterpoint is certainly countered by naivety.
          Here's a tip. Not all of us only discuss things we have PHDs in, and most of us who care about shit educate ourselves enough to discuss it like adults. On your own terms you should be sitting quietly in the corner while the grown ups argue over the laminex table. Something you wouldn't understand.

          I was going to ask if you know how to operate a keyboard. but I decided based on what lay before me/ instead.
          There oughta be a question mark tax

          There's plenty of links provided for you to get your self up to speed. Get back to me when you do.

          • CowFrogHorse on 16/03/2023 - 20:36

            @Protractor: pro: There's plenty of links provided for you to get your self up to speed.

            cow: Where, theres not a single link in your reply.

  • drfuzzy on 16/03/2023 - 14:19
    +7

    At $368,000,000,000 means every Australian man, woman and child needs to contribute $15,000 personally.
    Given that many Australian's pay no tax because they are too young, too old, or too broke that leaves the rest of us to shoulder significantly more than $15,000 per person.
    And more likely than not, it means our grandkids and their kids will be burdened with much of the cost, plus interest.

    • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 14:42
      +3

      Isn't it amazing how successful the deranged 'scaremongering' model has become. We would rather hide under the bed starving and broke than be an adult independent country.
      You know, the stuff the real wars were fought to preserve.
      AUKUS is just weapons for weapons sake bullshit.

      If the rest of SE Asia pushes back on this (some are already, and who could blame them?) we will nave noosed our necks for nought, and be in greater peril than ever, and quite possibly within the next decade. If China took advantage of that, they would just have to focus on the US, and the bigger places around us would just walk into Canberra and change the font.

      Hell if they signed a treaty with the First Australians when they did, they'd be 200+ years ahead of us in legitimacy.

      Albo should be losing sleep over this. The triaxis of tricolour countries may just have created a whole other and more complex front. Lots of Pacific Nations may now jump towards China. We sure as well cannot afford any more handouts, now.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join