TIME TO CANCELL $400 BILLION AUKUS SUBS !!!, page-106

First 106 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Scott th Ratbag

45,813 Posts.

642

21/08/24

17:23

Post #: 75310373
Share

Originally posted by squidd4: ↑

India does it's own thing, which is fine. It buys Russian military equipment, Russian oil, looks out for itself and what's best for itself. That's fine when you have a population of over 1 billion and your own nuclear arsenal.

Other countries you mentioned aren't strong enough to contain a Chinese size coercive threat. I'm sure we'll strengthen ties with them where possible, and that's all really still to do with balancing against China, but the nitty gritty security comes from the nuclear powers IMO. Look at the countries Russia has re-invaded after the collapse of the Soviet Union. All outside of NATO (unallied) & with no nuclear weapons.

The diesel subs would've been good for littoral waters. Nuclear subs are force projectors, they deny other ships/subs access to areas of water, operate in strike groups with aircraft carriers etc. It's about meeting/containing any perceived threat further away from our coast, and with the help of the US Navy.

ANZUS does not force a response from the US if Australia was attacked. I think the main issue though is, the US probably wants help in the future to continue to be able to balance a growing China. As the abilities of China change, the response needs to change as well. Time to step up and help shoulder the responsibility so we retain that status of important ally.

IMO a lot of this is a bit redundant. I don't think the US & China will come to blows, because the losses for both sides would just be too big & likely result in nuclear exchange. So, the question is whether we want to enjoy the security the US umbrella brings, or chance the arm on ourselves knowing we have no way to defend ourselves conventionally.

Cheers!

Expand

I agree with your final para particularly.

and as that is the most likely outcome, why then do we need defence forces at all?

nah.... we need to have a capability of defence. diesel subs can do most things than nuke subs can. maybe not so quiet but certainly adequate, maybe not such a long range, but would we want our personnel to be under water for 6 months at a time?

anyway, its all an interesting discussion. I concede that you make more sense with a better argument, and no doubt better informed than I am (wouldn't be difficult)

good chat squidd.
Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

SVL

Silver Mines pushing ahead with NSW Bowdens project despite green group setback over power lines

CC9

Chariot locks in high-potential drill target at Black Mountain, one of the USA's largest lithium landholdings

The Rising Tide: How institutional adoption is shaping the future of crypto

HIQ

Mouthguard concussion sensor tech developer HIT IQ wins second US patent

TRE

Toubani raises $10M to see Mali's Koubada Gold Project through to DFS