Australia - you're standing in it
Throwing a handful of toothpicks at a mountain.
etarip wrote:The world was so peaceful before 1945.
Not as many nuclear warheads around pre 1945....
Think international relations should take that into consideration a bit more seriously....
etarip wrote:Perspective:
Australia has the 6th longest coastline in the world. No land borders. Trade is entirely dependant on maritime access.
China has the 10th longest coastline in the world. Less than half of Australia’s coastline. Multiple land borders. Trade access is diversified across land and sea.
China has the largest Navy in the world (by # of vessels, although admittedly many existing ships are dubious in capability). This figure includes more than 70 submarines, in service now, including 6 nuclear powered Ballistic Missile boats. They have 44 attack submarines, a mix of nuclear and conventional. In terms of real naval capability, ie offensive power, the PLA-N still lags behind the US but projected capability sees them eclipse the US in the mid-2030s. The number of ships and submarines under construction is mind-blowing.
Australia has the 51st largest Navy in the world. Qualitatively it sits somewhere in the 20s. 6 attack submarines over the next 25(!) years is probably prudent. Whether this is a good deal or not is a different question.
Also, I note a few mentions of Australia achieving similar security outcomes through investment in missiles - which I’m assuming to mean ICBMs. That’s a dead-end, strategically. You either go nuke or you don’t bother (as a strategic deterrent). Going nuke-armed would violate Australia’s commitments under the NPT. Non-starter.
Your post on this topic are always a really good read.
andy-mac wrote:etarip wrote:The world was so peaceful before 1945.
Not as many nuclear warheads around pre 1945....
Think international relations should take that into consideration a bit more seriously....
I’d like to think that they. Two major shifts have happened since 1945 - Cold War emergence of nuclear deterrence theory, then the post Cold War adjustments to a multipolar nuclear club. (India, Pakistan, North Korea, probably Israel, potentially Iran).
Arguably, the period of peace between major powers from 1945 to now (an aberration) and then from 1991 known colloquially as Pax Americana, was actually more a period of adjustment to nuclear threats.
But, States gonna State, and we’re seeing multiple testing of the waters as far as what they think they can get away with. Look at the nuclear bluster in Ukraine that’s kinda died off. Because it didn’t work.
Anyway, it’s probably linked to the other thread more than this, but while there’s a lot of finger pointing at the USA / NATO for Ukraine, who’s actually thought about who the ‘winner’ out of all of it actually could be?
Which two countries went all in, before the Russian invasion, with a ‘No Limits’ cooperation policy?
For which Winter Olympic Games country did Russia (most likely) delay its invasion of Ukraine by 2-3 week for? With significant weather impacts that slowed its ‘blitzkrieg’ on Kyiv?
Which country has benefited most from cheap Russian gas?
(Hint, it’s not the USA)
Which country is the "winner" of it all and benefiting the most from the Ukraine war? Do you mean like this:
US dominates global arms trade as exports to Europe surge
US becomes world’s largest LNG exporter amid Ukraine war-driven demand
Now that's "winning"!
Could add a few hundred more articles to that list.
(Hint: It is the USA.)
And here's how Australia will pay the US for the nuclear subs:
Nobody dares question our own no limits cooperation with the US and UK…
- But let’s try call out others…
Pathetic finger pointing ;)
As always, pot calling kettle black.
Ever wondered that we’ve set a blueprint and only when there is a possibility of us getting beaten at our own game do we cry foul.
- Down periscope ;)
Put it on a sliding scale:
1. Russia wins easily, zero NATO support: reinforces the decline of the capitalist West. Taiwan likely cowed. China narrative reinforced, and the BRI gets full Russian support through newly annexed territories.
2. Russia wins ugly. NATO vacillates: Same as 1, but add some ‘revolutionary struggle’ BS into it. Sanctions fail and China learns from it.
3. Stalemate: Russia becomes more and more dependent on China. Cheap gas, tech transfer. west drawn into supporting conflict with new equipment (not the obsolete / legacy stuff they’re providing), reducing US / Western focus and responses to PRC’s actions in Asia, central Asia, the Pacific and Africa.
4. Ukrainian wins, potential minor concessions, Russia survives. Russia remains economically and diplomatically isolated. Potentially subject to reparations. Economically devastated.
5. Ukraine wins, Russian federation collapses completely or in part.. China has pretext for occupation of Russian territories in the east in the name of ‘border security. Opportunity to take Russia’s place in Central Asia as sphere of influence (actually already happening)
May be right, may be wrong. But pretty much everywhere on that spectrum China stood to gain. Even now, they get to play the mediator.
Plenty to think about. Who underwrote Putin’s confidence? What made him shift his strategy from the hitherto successful ‘hybrid war’ that had delivered Crimea in 2014? Had kept the West unbalanced for 20 years? Had hidden Russia’s actual fallibilities? Who gets to see how Russia equipment actually fares in combat?
This isn’t to say that any side is right or wrong. It’s a realist interpretation of events Just my read on what might have happened, how things might have played out and how it’s pretty much all in China’s interest.
Do you think the US encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine? Really?
Who was the single influence that could have talked him off the ledge? (Hint, it’s the same influence that told him to wind back the nuclear blister)
Pathetic JF? Really? You’re as one-eyed as anyone on this forum. USA = bad.
Take your emotional and pathological hatred of the USA out of it. Use your brain cell.
etarip wrote:andy-mac wrote:etarip wrote:The world was so peaceful before 1945.
Not as many nuclear warheads around pre 1945....
Think international relations should take that into consideration a bit more seriously....I’d like to think that they. Two major shifts have happened since 1945 - Cold War emergence of nuclear deterrence theory, then the post Cold War adjustments to a multipolar nuclear club. (India, Pakistan, North Korea, probably Israel, potentially Iran).
Arguably, the period of peace between major powers from 1945 to now (an aberration) and then from 1991 known colloquially as Pax Americana, was actually more a period of adjustment to nuclear threats.
But, States gonna State, and we’re seeing multiple testing of the waters as far as what they think they can get away with. Look at the nuclear bluster in Ukraine that’s kinda died off. Because it didn’t work.
Agree 100% regarding MAD. My concern is if there is a misjudgment in bluffing. Totally out of my knowledge area, but I don't think China will back down and at the end of the day the USA and West will have to accept their rise to super power status. Can the USA do this? Don't think they can run China down like they did with USSR as China has huge industrial base and they would not handle losing Face, due to historical factors. Still who knows???
Trump could be president again and cancel the whole thing and be mates again with China... ¯\_( ͠° ͟ʖ °͠ )_/¯
And it's not as if the USA is a united country at the moment!
etarip wrote:velocityjohnno wrote:Probably the shift under Turnbull was because defence and intelligence detected a threat and got the message through.
My example upthread of the Dutch East Indies deciding to stop selling Imperial Japan and what happened next goes some way to explaining why we still are selling ore. Contracts are probably a more telling reason.
I’d say that politicians started listening to what a number of sources were telling them, rather than a threat being detected. My understanding is that the message had been pretty consistent since about 2010, just no one wanted to hear it. There were finally some significant legislative changes around foreign interference and espionage circa 2017. China didn’t like that. Rumbled.
I'm resolute that the publication of "Silent Invasion" was the watershed moment for Australia as a whole, general realisation of CCP nefarious interference. It released the press to finally overcome their fear of being labelled racist and highlight CCP shitfuckery within Australia and abroad. Initially this was done at arm's length by reporting on the story, of the story, not so much the bones which kept them at safe racist free distance. But eventually the shackles came off and with it a greater public realisation of the threat. Our current crop of pollies, distracted by paper bags of cash to sense the change in the wind, got hit in the face by a full-on late arvo southerly change kick in the nuts to finally realise public sentiment and belatedly, acted accordingly. Disappointingly certain libs have caught the dog-whistling virus and continue to try and capitalise on such a delicate and sensitive issue that requires proper statesmanship diplomacy and negotiation for the public's interest.
Haha pirate boy ;)
This one even spells it out for you…
Hard for you to see at all with both eyes closed.
And don’t try accuse others of lacking intelligence… remember who you swore an allegiance to ;)
Pathetic indeed, but yeah keep flying ya flag and pretending you know what’s going on.
https://m.
gsco. There’s a difference between exploiting someone else mistake and actually creating the mistake.
It would be the most adroit of foreign policy success on the part of the US, and the most abject failure on the part of Russia, if the whole thing was a carefully formulated plan. You’d need to be able to see any sense of consistency and predictability in US foreign policy between Trump and Biden administrations, which there is little.
And one so full of risk! The Russian gamble *almost* worked, insofar as they *almost* reached Kyiv. Not a guarantee that they would have achieved their aim of regime change, but it would have complicated matters significantly and the Russians would have likely achieve some of their other operational goals (Odessa, Myokalaiv, Kharkiv).
So close, yet so far. Instead they’re stuck grinding away since August for a city the size of Bunbury. Without the port.
LNG. People like to be able to depend on their supply of energy. Most people don’t realise that the Russians had completely cut off gas to Europe for a full month before ‘someone’ blew up the (soon to be decommissioned) Nordstream 1 and one (only one - not both) of the NS2 pipes. And this cutoff had been after reducing supply by 75%. Was that decision the US’s as well? Or a poorly executed act of coercion that backfired?
So, again, realism. The US had / has a lot at stake. And they’re going to capitalise on Russia’s mistake. Just like India is though access to cheap gas, and just like China always planned to.
@JF. Doug McGregor? again? Jesus. Look at the guys bio. You’ve got a great little circle jerk of sources - Dougie, Sacks, and that other guy.
Remember when you said that the Russians were quote sitting pretty unquote late last year? Then they lost Kharkiv and Kherson about a month later? Somewhere in the order of 50% of formerly occupied territory has been retaken.
If you don’t, that’s cool. I remember.
I do appreciate that you’ve slowed down on the Scott Ritter posts though…. I mean, actually posting a link to sites that monetise the opinions of a convicted child sex offender kinda puts a dent in your moral crusade against Prince Andrew, the ADF and anyone who has served in a Commonwealth, State or local Government job doesn’t it?
Yes. I remember clearly.
You also stated things would only get worse for Russia from then on…
You were wrong. There is a long way to go and nobody really knows on either side.
If you think you have better credentials and info than a former colonel then it just shows how deluded you really are…
Try pulling ya head outta your arse ;)
@andy-mac. With you. I don’t think the rise of China can be contained. It’s a fact now. There were genuine hopes that it would be a force for good, and that the international system would flex to accommodate.
I hold out hope. The US ain’t great at nuance. But neither is China.
Nuclear brinkmanship. Jesus.
Jelly Flater wrote:Yes. I remember clearly.
You also stated things would only get worse for Russia from then on…You were wrong. There is a long way to go and nobody really knows on either side.
If you think you have better credentials and info than a former colonel then it just shows how deluded you really are…Try pulling ya head outta your arse ;)
Things haven’t gotten better for Russia though, have they? They lost 50% of the territory that they occupied at that time. That’s literally ‘things getting worse’. They lost control of oblasts that they’d recently annexed. Totes Awkward!
I never said that the Ukrainians weren’t taking heavy casualties. They’re going to. But they’re also prepared to. It’s what people do when someone invades their country.
No one’ knows’ what’s going to happen. People make assessments about what might happen. Then other people make weird farting noises with their mouths and expect that to be taken seriously.
And, FWIW, I’ll put my credentials up against Colonel Rob McGregor’s any day of the week. But I don’t need to.
Because there’s plenty of more informed, more experienced and more credentialed men and women out there who put it all out there in the public domain. You should try looking at it.
I mean, Doug’s assessment isn’t shared by several significant Russian commentators. Look it up. Google translate is wonderful. Russian to English. You might even be able to find a YT clip to make it easy for you.
Well…
At least you can admit that you make weird farting noises with your mouth ;)
- That is real courage on display ;);)
@bonza: “Disappointingly certain libs have caught the dog-whistling virus and continue to try and capitalise on such a delicate and sensitive issue that requires proper statesmanship diplomacy and negotiation for the public's interest.”
Yeah, there’s nothing to be gained from exploiting this for political gain. It’s cringeworthy. Carry on, make the necessary changes and don’t make a fuss of it. Give diplomats and statesman the space to operate. 100%.
Jelly Flater wrote:Well…
At least you can admit that you make weird farting noises with your mouth ;)- That is real courage on display ;);)
And you’ve learned what ‘worse’ means. Wins all round.
bonza wrote:I'm resolute that the publication of "Silent Invasion" was the watershed moment for Australia as a whole, general realisation of CCP nefarious interference. It released the press to finally overcome their fear of being labelled racist and highlight CCP shitfuckery within Australia and abroad.
Was gonna write something similar yesterday. The shift in attitude exists on a spectrum, at one end with Francis Fukuyama opining about the "end of history" and liberalism's global triumph, and at the other end is where we are today with the realisation China has no interest in following the existing order and will, in fact, white ant it to their own end.
I'm sure, as etarip says, politicians were getting their own intel, but for mine Hamilton's book shifted the needle of public perception more than anything else.
Parallel to geopolitical realisations mentioned above, in the investment sphere, those investing in China over the last decade began to realise that you may put money into the country but would probably never get it out again. There was often a one way street of technology transfer occurring - use the western "partner" until they knew all they needed to and then take over the market themselves.
Those "partnering" with Chinese firms in Australia in, say mining, began to find there was a predatory element to it all. An off take MoU with a Chinese firm in 2013 was hailed as a great leap forward for a local miner trying to move to production. By 2018 it was often seen as a negative as they either led to nothing much or else could end up with the miner being strung along to the point of receivership and then bought cheap.
Lived experience and financial losses created some deep scepticism across many countries about China's motives and behaviour at a big business level and even down to the mass of retail investors who got burnt or watched others do so.
Just reading Hastie going on about funding submarines, and Russia taking out US drone. Wonder what would happen with drone from China flying near US air space?. Where is the money going to come from? Higher taxes or cuts to essential services, NDIS, Medical, Education ( hope lots of Chinese students keep studying here to prop up uni sector)? Especially if we are serious we will be stopping all mineral exports to China.
If China was serious in going to war with Australia,I'm guessing having submarines would make 3/5's of fuck all. Geez these LNP tough guys like Hastie should shut the fuck up....
Send ‘em all to the front lines ;)
https://m.
Conscription next maybe?
Paul Keating has issued a statement labelling the AUKUS submarine purchase & build the "worst international decision" by Labor since Billy Hughes tried to introduce conscription @danielhurstbne @natasha__may #auspol pic.twitter.com/zOof3HzsNW
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) March 15, 2023
Paul Keating free to speak out while federal Labor toes the line and bends over.
I had a look at the front pages of The Oz, SMH, Tele and the Courier Mail yesterday and they were all dribbling in their support of AUKUS, nuclear subs and all things war.
So if there's talk of conscription you can bet the mainstream press will be fizzing at the bum in support.
This country is free and sovereign in theory only.
etarip wrote:Perspective:
Australia has the 6th longest coastline in the world. No land borders. Trade is entirely dependant on maritime access.
China has the 10th longest coastline in the world. Less than half of Australia’s coastline. Multiple land borders. Trade access is diversified across land and sea.
China has the largest Navy in the world (by # of vessels, although admittedly many existing ships are dubious in capability). This figure includes more than 70 submarines, in service now, including 6 nuclear powered Ballistic Missile boats. They have 44 attack submarines, a mix of nuclear and conventional. In terms of real naval capability, ie offensive power, the PLA-N still lags behind the US but projected capability sees them eclipse the US in the mid-2030s. The number of ships and submarines under construction is mind-blowing.
Australia has the 51st largest Navy in the world. Qualitatively it sits somewhere in the 20s. 6 attack submarines over the next 25(!) years is probably prudent. Whether this is a good deal or not is a different question.
Also, I note a few mentions of Australia achieving similar security outcomes through investment in missiles - which I’m assuming to mean ICBMs. That’s a dead-end, strategically. You either go nuke or you don’t bother (as a strategic deterrent). Going nuke-armed would violate Australia’s commitments under the NPT. Non-starter.
That is a good perspective. The missiles mentioned are the A2/AD concept and this would feature missiles of different ranges. These would be conventional and attempt to deny an adversary access to Australia's northern shores. Range/accuracy is most important here. I think we're getting LRASMs as an example of part of this? This concept was pioneered by China btw.
The subs will give Australia a phase shift upward in capability. Subs happen to be the strategy of navies that cannot match a competitor in size (eg Germany vs UK WW1, WW2, Soviet Russia vs US in cold war) where they can provide an asymmetric threat.
In terms of a tactical situation, I think of Operation Corporate in late April/early May 1982. The British carrier group was closing on a position NW of the Falklands islands, and the Argentine Navy sailed in two groups to catch it in a pincer attack. Their carrier group to the north, a second missile group centred around the cruiser General Belgrano to the south of the islands. The nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror intercepted the Belgrano group, sank her (with WW2 torpedoes), and both Argentine groups retired, handing command of the sea area to the UK very early on in the conflict. It was not contested again in the conflict, although the air and land continued to be, but strategically this was an enormous event, and the submarine was responsible for it.
AndyM wrote:Paul Keating free to speak out while federal Labor toes the line and bends over.
I had a look at the front pages of The Oz, SMH, Tele and the Courier Mail yesterday and they were all dribbling in their support of AUKUS, nuclear subs and all things war.
So if there's talk of conscription you can bet the mainstream press will be fizzing at the bum in support.
This country is free and sovereign in theory only.
You reckon walking a neutral path is a viable option for Australia?
News coverage quickly gets dominated by "we gonna build ourselves a sub" excitement and job bonanza.
Careful phrasing of costs in interviews as "only 0.15% of GDP" - just loose change! Missing off the fact that GDP is not = government income by a long way and the bit that it is 0.15% of GDP over the project life.
Spin and froth never ends. Media all dancing to a new war with China is now normalised and subs are great for business tune within hours.
Maybe one day the subs will save the day. Or maybe a $100,000 underwater drone will take them out. Don't know.
But that it only took 24 hours for Morrison and the US/UK to convince Albo it was the way to go "I am proud of what we achieved in 24 hours" is a big worry given how fast technology and geopolitics is moving. I guess there was a lot of background info in place from the French sub plans.
If it was 24 days of in-depth analysis it would be more re-assuring.
I cannot comprehend a competent future PM being happy to make such a massive commitment in 24 hours.
But with some slick videos, multiple stern-faced US Generals in the briefing room weighed down with medals and a "are you with us or against us Mr Albanese" posture - "you have 24 hours till we announce it" I think it would take a Paul Keating type character to resist the time frame pressure.
The first AUKUS sub should be called
— Come_on_man 🇦🇺 (@TruthdriverOn) March 14, 2023
HMAS Scott Morrison
What a fantastic legacy PM Scott Morrison has left for this country going into the future #auspol #AUKUS #ScoMo @ScottMorrisonMP pic.twitter.com/YNM1wk3ELF
You sure, Frog? I'm reading plenty of news articles that are either critical or neutral about the deal. Right, left, straight down the middle, lots of questions about cost/benefit and what the implications are.
On the latter, and putting cost aside for a moment, why is it that China can amass the largest navy in the world - see etarip's post above - yet when Australia acquires a bit of kit we're seen as aggressors?
frog wrote:Parallel to geopolitical realisations mentioned above, in the investment sphere, those investing in China over the last decade began to realise that you may put money into the country but would probably never get it out again. There was often a one way street of technology transfer occurring - use the western "partner" until they knew all they needed to and then take over the market themselves.
Those "partnering" with Chinese firms in Australia in, say mining, began to find there was a predatory element to it all. An off take MoU with a Chinese firm in 2013 was hailed as a great leap forward for a local miner trying to move to production. By 2018 it was often seen as a negative as they either led to nothing much or else could end up with the miner being strung along to the point of receivership and then bought cheap.
Lived experience and financial losses created some deep scepticism across many countries about China's motives and behaviour at a big business level and even down to the mass of retail investors who got burnt or watched others do so.
This is why it's so important to have our own manufacturing, indeed an entire in-house supply chain to make things.
Good point Stu - I see much of our buildup as a response. Posted before a link to the Chinese naval build up "The rise of a blue water navy". Blue water means power projection.
stunet wrote:AndyM wrote:Paul Keating free to speak out while federal Labor toes the line and bends over.
I had a look at the front pages of The Oz, SMH, Tele and the Courier Mail yesterday and they were all dribbling in their support of AUKUS, nuclear subs and all things war.
So if there's talk of conscription you can bet the mainstream press will be fizzing at the bum in support.
This country is free and sovereign in theory only.You reckon walking a neutral path is a viable option for Australia?
I'm not necessarily talking about neutrality, I'm talking about having some semblance of political control, including the media.
I'd like to think that you can have alliances without the country becoming a vassal state.
As an example, France, Germany and the United States have an alliance in NATO, there are large U.S. military bases in both France and Germany yet both refused to be involved in Iraq.
Australia seems to have zero autonomy in that sort of stuff.
AUKUS is the single most disgraceful and embarrassing moment in modern Australian history.
It is completely devoid and ignorant of, and naive and blind to even the remotest understanding of world history, of China, and of the current changing geopolitical landscape and power arrangements.
It is the single most short and narrow sighted decision ever made in Australia's history that will damage Australia for decades to come.
It was sprung on the population by surprise with no public debate prior to the decision being made, which was in secret and announced only after it was made.
Australia as a country has now gone completely insane.
We have put ourselves offside with the overwhelming majority of the globe's population - Africa, Latin America, most of Asia, China, the Middle East, Central Asia, Russia, etc - and we are now military targets of all of these countries.
We have formally sided with the most ruthless, murderous, warmongering country of the modern post WW2 era.
We have decided to be a warmongering country instead of one focused on peace and prosperity.
Paul Keating is the only sane person in Australia right now.
Paul Keating has issued a statement labelling the AUKUS submarine purchase & build the "worst international decision" by Labor since Billy Hughes tried to introduce conscription @danielhurstbne @natasha__may #auspol pic.twitter.com/zOof3HzsNW
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) March 15, 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2023/mar/15/australia-li...
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/paul-keating-calls-nuclear-subma...
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/fortescue-bids-to-build-south-austr...
The overwhelming majority of the world population is shaking their heads at us and asking how Australia could get things so backwards and wrong.
How could we get it so wrong?
It's because Australia as a country in the Westphalian sense has ceased to exist.
Morrissey at his most melodramatic couldn't have topped those last two posts.
In fact Andy, your one is better sung out loud in a Morrissey croon.
What rhymes with 'exist'?
Kissed
Grist
Missed
Schindler's List
Agreed. So poetic, my heart is breaking.
Paul Keating was on fire and on point.
FFS it won't be until well into the 2030's that we get our second-hand subs from the Seppos, then in the 2050's - 60's we get the newbies. Not going to help if as some of the MSM have been screaming via 9 media that we will be at war in 3 years.
Geez hope China wait until we are ready.
Google US bases in Asia and how they surround China, then you may see some reasoning why they are spending big on Navy/ Military etc, still considerably less % GDP than the USA I may add. They are an emerging superpower and of course they will grow their military as their economy grows.
The USA can go on about the Spratly islands, but that is not even in the same league as what they did in Diego Garcia.
Can anyone point out any reason why China would try and occupy Australia? And could they even if they wanted to?
They may be far from perfect, but which country has been on more illegal military adventures in the last 50 years?
What really pisses me off with the whole deal was the lack of consultation with the Australian people, no debate, nothing, where is the nuclear waste going to be kept, where are they going to base subs etc etc. Stinks of Howard and Iraq and didn't that turn out well.
stunet wrote:You sure, Frog? I'm reading plenty of news articles that are either critical or neutral about the deal. Right, left, straight down the middle, lots of questions about cost/benefit and what the implications are.
On the latter, and putting cost aside for a moment, why is it that China can amass the largest navy in the world - see etarip's post above - yet when Australia acquires a bit of kit we're seen as aggressors?
I did not do a big review of news just formed an impression of what I saw last night flicking between channels and heard driving home from work. I am happy if debate is more widespread than I saw.
On geopolitics:
I think China has systematically shifted various goal posts for decades in all sorts of ways to their favour and almost never took a step back. Over this time:
- mostly west stood by or even facilitated things
- Wall St chased short term dollars as always
- many politicians, Universities and other organisations were complicit is furthering their aims encouraged through various funding mechanisms that benefited them or their professional interests.
Things had to change in non military areas. But defence and deterrence options are part of the equation.
Hopefully Albo's 24 hour decision was supported by the culmination of years of background analysis by the right experts and not rushed by a surprise "ambush" sales pitch under the extreme time pressure of a big announcement the next day. Not confident on that though.
Hugh White on why AUKUS submarines will never happen:
OPINION
stunet wrote:Hugh White on why AUKUS submarines will never happen:
OPINION
""For the price we are looking to pay for an eight-boat fleet of SSNs under the AUKUS program – around $300 billion – we could build and operate a fleet of fifty conventionally powered submarines, and there would be much less risk of it all going wrong. Now that would be a serious submarine force, far more capable than eight SSNs for the roles we need.""
Cool n normal!!
I dont know why everyone is worried about cost?
What happen to MMT????
stunet wrote:Morrissey at his most melodramatic couldn't have topped those last two posts.
In fact Andy, your one is better sung out loud in a Morrissey croon.
Dunno, how are we not a vassal state?
In any case, I shall be at the bar, with my head on the bar.
After all, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges.
AndyM wrote:stunet wrote:Morrissey at his most melodramatic couldn't have topped those last two posts.
In fact Andy, your one is better sung out loud in a Morrissey croon.
Dunno, how are we not a vassal state?
In any case, I shall be at the bar, with my head on the bar.
After all, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges.
Garry Weed to the courtesy phone, please!
indo-dreaming wrote:I dont know why everyone is worried about cost?
What happen to MMT????
Most of the money is being sent overseas... So not MMT.
AndyM wrote:stunet wrote:Morrissey at his most melodramatic couldn't have topped those last two posts.
In fact Andy, your one is better sung out loud in a Morrissey croon.
Dunno, how are we not a vassal state?
In any case, I shall be at the bar, with my head on the bar.
After all, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges.
Vassal state since Pine Gap the subs only locks us in, meet you at the bar
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.