TIME TO CANCELL $400 BILLION AUKUS SUBS !!!, page-99

The idea of these subs is to be able to take out opposing subs & surface ships in deep water. That doesn't necessarily need to be an offensive action. Being an island that isn't self sufficient means far away international shipping lanes require defending too. Containing & retarding possible threats hundreds of miles away.

I don't think nuclear weapons are on the agenda. No need for them with US nuclear subs & B52's parked here. That's the idea, we are protected under the US umbrella.

"the more weaponry we have, the more we become a target for obliteration in the event of a major conflict. a source of destruction for any aggressor, so we would then become a country to be neutralised first"

IMO if there was major conflict in the Pacific, whether we were closely aligned with the US or not would simply determine in which order we died. "Sitting it out" won't save us in the event of major exchanges between nuclear powers. So, IMO, the options are;

- Very closely aligned with the US, meaning guaranteed security unless all out war - in which we all die quickly

- Tread our own path, meaning no security guarantees, ability to be coerced economically & physically, and if all out war occurred, we would still all die, just maybe a bit more slowly.

Cheers!