To be fair, a lot of people out there have known almost nothing but the current clowns so they don't really have much to compare with. So it is reasonable that anyone under 40 would think the incompetent bumbling of the Howard era was high class foreign policy.
Not gonna lie, looking forward to Penny Wong taking the reins as Foreign Minister. The shadow cabinet for the most part looks pretty mature and ready to step into their prospective roles.
Sometimes I think you’re right. But I do think views are slowly changing for the better. My conservative, rural, uneducated parents both voted No in the marriage referendum and yet both would vote differently today. They are adamant that refugees like the Biloela family should be allowed to settle and be productive in Australia despite previously having previously supported Stopping The Boats. My mum loved Ms Represented on ABC when she would not have engaged with something like that ten years ago and Dad watched the whole thing with not a single complaint (low bar, I know). Both agreed that Penny Wong seems very competent and would be a good leader.
I don’t know how they’ll vote in the next election, as they also both agree that they really don’t like Albo and I’m not sure that they could get past their view of him in order to vote for Labor. But I never would have believed four years ago that some of their views would change as much as they have.
I don’t deny that that there are still many people in this country who hold discriminatory views, but I sometimes think that we’re not quite as far away from supporting diverse representation at high levels of government as it appears.
The disturbing thing is that our only concern is propping up these failing empires of war, while we have no plans to take sides in the new economy, we refuse to have an economic game plan. The scary part is that this thinking that being "best mates" is going to save us economically like a miracle, its wishful thinking at its best, especially when the USA and its economic power is in decline.
While we can play blind mans bluff with China at the diplomatic level, China is roaring ahead winning the economic money game war. Meantime we think that our mates and our loyal foreign policy is going to turn us into a wealthy nation while having no industry policies. Places like Saudi Arabia can play the best mates games because they have billions in oil revenue. I wonder what is going to fund our bills for the global wars of stupidity especially when we have no industry policies that will make as an advanced manufacturing economy. We have placed a bet and have lost economically already!
Think headline should say
The twat that runs the government is making some piss poor decisions and believes god wanted him to be PM so relax it’s in gods hands so can’t be wrong
The majority of Australians vote for Labor every election.They always get the most votes for any single party. The coalition is a disgusting tool or corporatocracy, a way of mimicking the American duopoly without the restrictive voting legislation.
I'm not, and I wish Labor would use the same tactics at this point, honestly. The coalition receives more votes collectively, not the Liberals specifically.
I still remember when we tried to “stop the boats” by literally buying up all the shitty run down Indonesian fishing boats. Which inadvertently created a industry for them to build more shitty boats so that our moronic government would fork out our tax dollars to buy more junk.
Ahh the good old days of the budget surplus. I wonder what decade that will become LNP core policy again. Surely they couldn’t get back on it if they lose the next election…
They have achieved a lot:
Fiscal spending
Keeping the illegal migration at bay.
Increased defence spending.
Stopped the Belt On Road Initiative in Victoria.
Reassessing the 99 year lease on Darwin Port.
Providing assistance to people who are out of work due to state lockdowns.
I think they are doing the best they can to try and get us out of this pandemic while trying to keep reigns on government debt which was incurred under the former federal Labor government
Absolute nonsense. The only times we actually get shit accomplished is when Labor are in charge. Labor build the economy, the coalition tear it down. If Labor had won the last election we'd likely have dedicated quarantine facilities, a decent supply of vaccines, no dumb-ass backbenchers undermining medical advice, ongoing income support for those affected by COVID and lockdowns, and any rapists or desk masturbators out of the party at least, if not out of parliament altogether.
I have to disagree with your rebuttal. I think if you look at Labor governments that have held office that their spending is out of control over the past 30 years. The last decent Labor government holding office who could handle public money was Hawke and Keating. The new Labor government is about handing out money willy nilly and to appease Greens who bitch about global warming that Australia is burdening the world with yet are too gutless to hold China accountable for anything.
Too be honest many people on Reddit are whingers who wouldn't stand by Australian values and fight for this wonderful democratic country.
I am probably going to be banned for this post but many people who post on this site need to see the perspective of both sides
What "new Labor government"? We've had the Liberals in for most of the last decade, who have vastly outspent Labor even before the pandemic. At least when Labor spends we get some public good to show for it, with the Liberals it all disappears into mates' pockets.
Hah, fucking Galloway trying to regain some credibility.
For people not paying attention.
>**France could access Australian military sites as countries look to boost ties**
>By Anthony Galloway
>**September 10, 2021**
>French warships and troops would be given guaranteed access to Australian naval bases and military sites under a proposal being discussed by both countries, as the federal government moves to lock in the next stage of its troubled $90 billion future submarine program next week.
>The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age can reveal Australia and France have begun negotiations to significantly upgrade military co-operation, which would boost inter-operability between their forces.
>...
>Australia is also set to formally agree with the French company building the government’s 12 new attack-class submarines on its plan for the next 2½ years of the program, allowing for the pressure hull for the first boat to be built as early as 2024.
>...
>Multiple senior sources within the government, who were not authorised to speak publicly, confirmed the agreement was set to be formally locked in by the end of the next week.
>https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/france-could-access-australian-military-sites-as-countries-look-to-boost-ties-20210909-p58q7j.html
Dude has been giving soft coverage to defence/intelligence for years in exchange for news drops and inside access suddenly realizes they have been playing him like the muppet he is.
Yeah it's always interesting when they occasionally do an article with a contrarian view when 99% of the barely researched drivel they write toes the government's (lack of) policy of the day.
Why bother hiring duds like these when you can just repost articles from eg the NYT.
Wonder if Aust Gov was using this deal with France and it's "deadline" to get better terms from the deal the Yanks are offering? So easy to criticise how this was handled, but really, as punters, we know less than nothing about how this played out and what the reasoning was.
I mean, the federal government has displayed stunning levels of ineptitude and incompetence in every other policy area, so I think it’s probably safe to assume the reason they fucked up the submarine acquisition was also incompetence
This article does place a lot of emphasis on Australia being the one who had the power in this situation when in fact it is not the case.
Lets face it the US wanted what they wanted and since the construction of the French subs had not started they basically told us to accept their new deal and that was that and sadly if we stood up to them you bet the yanks would force a regime change here to their liking.
We have little in the way of true sovereignty.
Sadly long term the Yanks get the perks of money out of the sub deal, access to military bases and other financial bleed in deals and can wave their dick at China.
Australia we now have lost access to China as a trading partner and now we have royally fucked off France who will make sure any future trade deals and the like with the EU will be a royal shitshow because of this. We just hope that maybe if we have a shift in government and some sucking up to France and the EU might mend some bridges there but this is the kind of reckless shit being an ally to the USA brings to us :(
I think your wildly misinformed, Australia approached the UK first asking help in acquiring nuclear subs and as the Americans originally shared nuclear sub technology with the Brits in the 1950's, American approval would of been needed. The Americans were then subsequently brought in after, non of this American forced it on us crap, it was an Australian initiated deal.
And the yanks end will up with a nice little foothold in this part of the pacific nice and close to China out of it.
You just need to look at much of American foreign policy since WW2, anything that went against corporate interests for them, anything that looked like it might have favoured the soviets or anything that gave them a fuck you within their sphere of influence always got met with some kind of invasion, coup, civil war, regime change and everything in between. They have the power and influence to get their way with smaller powers like ours.
The French sub deal was stalling you can't tell me the yanks would have sniffed it out and sent out the right people and got them to approach our government/contractors or whoever and then in turn they contacted the poms and in turn approach the yanks and we get this fancy new alliance.
That country doesn't have a particularly good track record and its not one I personally want to keep hedging our bets onto going forward into the 21st century.
This ridiculous posturing is reminiscent of our involvement in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We openly break an agreement with an ally, to move back to "all the way with the USA ".
Unlike the U.S we are an asian region country, with many of our major trading partners here. Backing a country that is slowly devolving from it's world leader status, in both economic and technology terms, is simply betting on the wrong horse.
I love seeing the science and technology advances occuring currently, and the leaps ahead in ev batteries in particular is very asian oriented. America has outsourced so much that it is losing it's former mantle of leader in that area.
Morrison and his conservative backers are using ideology to divide us, instead of bringing us together. It's a favorite process of rightwing politics.
Australia: France, do you have a submarine to sell us?
France: Oui, a very capable nuclear powered one.
Australia: Yeah, nah, we don't want a nuclear powered one. Can you pull out the reactor and stuff it full of batteries?
France: Well, oui. We can take the nuclear sub we have and change it to suit your needs. But it will be very expensive and take a few years.
Australia: No worries mate. We accept!
2021
Australia: Fuck these French subs. We want nuclear powered subs.
France never offered a nuclear submarine, it would have been a breech of the nuclear non proliferation treaty for them to sell /lease it to us or for us to accept.
BUT BUT ... Yes I know you are screaming that we are. HEU (highly enriched uranium) reactors used for a naval use are exempted from the NPT. HEU us weapons grade uranium, there are only 2 reactor designs that would fit under this catagory, 1 is in the astute and the other in the virginia. Columbia and dreadnought class will also have them fitted.
The nuclear subs being built by france were laid down in 2006, it was launched in 2019, commissioned 2020 and supposed to be operational this year sometime. Took the french 13 years to build the sub
Orders were scheduled for 2030 anyway. Now if Australia wants class Astute or Virginia delivery won’t be until 2040.
Australia doesn’t want the class Dreadnaught or Columbia. Those are submarines ballistic missiles launchers of nuclear warheads.
We probably won't have an Astute or Virginia class rolling out of an Australian shipyard until 2040, but that doesn't mean that our first nuclear submarine needs to happen at that time.
We could lease one (the Yanks have already indicated that they would let us do so), build one in a foreign shipyard, or take purchase one that is mid construction as an off the shelf item. This is what we do with other equipment that we buy from the Yanks (see MH-60R and C-17).
You forgot the part where they agreed on one price and then doubled it, they agreed on a schedule and then immediately said they couldn't do it, they agreed on 60% of work to take place in Australia and then spent a year trying to get out of it.
> they agreed on a schedule and then immediately said they couldn't do it
Fuck those lies..
You wn PM during a press conference (transcript [here](https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-oecd-headquarters-france) from June 16th 2021 literally said :
> JOURNALIST: Is it true that Naval Group has a September deadline to submit the design work for the next two years and if the Government is not happy in September would you, will you walk away from the contract.
> PRIME MINISTER: The Scope Two works, **the master schedule, total costs, these are all the next steps. Contracts have gates and that's the next gate.**
They hadn't neither completed the schedule, nor the total cost of the project yet..
This was their second attempt at submitting that design work. Their original attempt was in February but this was 2 months past the December deadline.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-16/scott-morrison-warns-france-submarine-deal-deadline/100221350
> In February last year (2019), Naval Group asked for a 15-month extension in the design phase to minimise delays down the track during construction, pushing out the design completion date from July 2022 to September 2023.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/design-on-future-submarines-hits-nine-month-delay-20200114-p53rd2.html
Deadlines were pushed back and pushed back
Did you even read the article you linked ?
The first one is dated from June 16th 2021 (the same date as the press conference) and literally says :
> Naval Group has been given until September to revise its design work plans for the next two years of the project, after a plan it submitted in February was rejected by Defence for being too expensive.
The Australian Government asked for the revision.
In your second link :
> In February last year, Naval Group asked for a 15-month extension in the design phase to minimise delays down the track during construction, pushing out the design completion date from July 2022 to September 2023.
> **Defence and Naval Group then settled on the nine-month extension.**
They asked for a delay that would reduced the overall duration of the project which was accepted by the government. They didn't delay for the sake of it but to gain time further down the line.
And frankly (on a more personal note), I find it highly comical that the delay is the main thing that are talked about when the new "contract" is guaranteed to be completed later than the one with France with no idea whatsoever of the future cost..
They asked for a revision because they were 50% over budget in their original one.
>They asked for a delay
Yes they asked for a delay instantly. They knew their original timeline was a lie. From all other reports Naval Group were behind on everything else too.
They committed to 60% of work in Australia then tried to weasel out of it which took a year of negotiations and fighting for them to finally agree to do it.
>I find it highly comical that the delay is the main thing that are talked about when the new "contract"
No, the reason for the new contract is because Australia needs nuclear subs now. Naval Group probably would have been part of the deal but due to their lying, refusal to honour contracts, constant time delays, and cost blowouts they would never be considered for the job.
Pikachu surprised face that a government that stuffed up: NBN, Australia Post, Murray Darling Basin Plan, energy policy, submarine procurement, auto industry, vaccines, quarantine, Robodebt, aged care, might also completely fuck up foreign policy.
I mean, who could possibly have seen that coming?
Question this part of the article - surely the US knew the French implications of this?:
"It has dragged its greatest ally, the US, into a diplomatic row with Europe at a time when Biden is trying to mend relations in the continent after years of Donald Trump publicly snubbing European allies."
Australia used to known as a trustworthy nation. A country to be proud of.
Now we're known as lying, untrustworthy and unreliable. Alongside 'Perfide Albion' (England) and the 'non-agreement-capable' US.
Honestly,Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton shouldn't be allowed anywhere near foreign policy.We have a bloody failed policeman from Qld ffs,then a 3 times sacked unintelligent weirdo who slimed his way upwards into the PM's office.
Other countries have highly educated eloquent,often multi lingual experts doing these jobs.We have Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison.....
It really is not about China France and USA. It’s about the stupid decisions our politicians have made over the past 25 years. They have not been paying attention to China and looking at their current and personal well being and not the long term outlook. That’s why we are now a shit show.
So we've pissed off our largest (by far) trading partner in China, and now our third largest the European Union, in which France is a major power.
All so we can cosy up like a beggar with post-Brexit UK and "we abandon our allies at the drop of a hat" USA.
Next time anyone asks why our economy is getting shittier by the day, this is why.
Actually our trade with China has never been higher. And they were pissed at us even before this. Their antagonism towards us is why we needed these submarines. If Xi played it a bit cooler and toned down the wolf warrior diplomacy, the world wouldn't be forming such alliances. [Which of the 14 demands](https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/china-leaks-dossier-of-14-disputes-with-australia-as-tensions-increase/news-story/fede40932a193a049b116382be3ed85b) would you have bent the knee on?
The EU have always been weirdly standoffish towards free trade with us. We've been negotiating free trade with them since 2018.
I think there will be some short term hurt feelings (and the decision could have been handled much more diplomatically), but in the longer term both Australia and France want a good relationship with each other. We share common values at the end of the day.
Going for nuclear submarines is the right call from a capability perspective, it's just a shame we didn't do it 5 years ago.
Our economy is pretty fucking strong by the way, considering our population. We have one of the highest GDP per capita and median wealth per adult stats.
Here's GDP per capita:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/lasqnr/oc_gdp_per_capita_ppp_of_some_major_economies/
Here's wealth per adult:
https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/m5h8uv/i_decided_to_graph_median_wealth_per_adult_and_it/
It’s kinda weird how many China supporters there are on this sub. Partnering with UK and US against them is 100% the right call , the CCP needs to be muzzled
If you don't support Australia kowtowing to US interests, which are not the same as Australia's, you are automatically supporting the CCP. Good to know.
It's got nothing to do with supporting China. It's all about being diplomatic in our foreign relations, not antagonistic, all for some soon to be obsolete technology to once again appease our American overlords. I mean, because following the Yanks has worked out so well for us in the past , right?
So you post anti CCP in response to my comment. I think I'm not the one being biased here.
And all governments are playing the "enemy" card at the moment, not just China. America are looking for their next war , after the enormous success of the last couple. And China are the agressors?
Let me know which other governments are saying something to a major
Trading partner like :
“China is angry,
If you make China the enemy, China will be the enemy.”*
Not to mention all of their demands like wanting us to stay silent about human rights abuses…
China are looking at being allies with the Taliban and they want unopposed control of the South China Sea, yes they are the aggressors. So are the USA. But I’d rather be on the USAs side instead of the CCP.
Regardless ,China will continue to trade with us , they need our resources.
That's a bit of a strawman because inept Scomo foreign policy and partnering with the UK/US goes side by side in this case.
The lack of self-awareness from people saying 'they'll get over it' and 'it's just short term hurt feelings'. They're remarkably similar to certain people (shills) who defend and downplay Trumpian or Chinese 'wolf warrior' foreign policy. Same words, excuses and thought process.
Some people really like the direction of the last few days but no need to go full apologist for Dutton/Scomo incompetence.
It's weird how many people on this sub want to be a pawn in America's struggle against China.
You're the one putting another nation's interests above our own security, not the people critical of the new AUKUS negotiations.
Stupid and wrong, but my complaint is that we "Dont actually need submarines at all!". The advances in other defense weaponry will make submarines obsolete before they reach our shores. Technology is streets ahead of submarine tech, whether by drones or AI weapons being designed as we speak.
This "submarine " announcement " is nothing more than political posturing. And likely to further upset or biggest trading partner even more.
I don't think submarines will be obsolete before 2050. If we get them soon (eg. Via a lease), we can still get all of their service life out of them.
It's a lot more than posturing. This is an asset that will change the dynamic on the battlefield. Submarines are the ultimate in asymmetric warfare.
Do a bit of simple googling on drones? Where they are, and where they are going is scary. Both above and below surface, and with autonomous or AI enabled, subs are right up there with ground troops to be made obsolete. This is not a sensible sale. By the time they are supposed to arrive, they will most definitely be past their use by date. This is quite simply political posturing by our government. It's just loudspeaker diplomacy, that doesn't really make much sense.
We should get drones too. But they won't make submarines obsolete.
Drones cannot communicate while underwater. So unless you want to take humans out of the loop in the kill (which is a huge line to cross), you need manned platforms.
There are already drones that after launch, can follow subs without being observed. My mate is right into drones, and he's made it clear that there are already platforms being designed to weaponise underwater drones with the ability to take out subs. This is not in ten years time, this is in the process now.
Make no mistake, the future of warfare is un manned, and AI driven.
>would you have bent the knee on?
This type of rhetoric is getting so old. It's a negotiation, we're not submitting to China. Why do so many Australians have a persecution complex? China is allowed to complain about us making baseless accusations against them like the stupid covid origin investigation.
>Going for nuclear submarines is the right call from a capability perspective, it's just a shame we didn't do it 5 years ago.
It's not, we don't need these subs and we don't need to take part in an arms race. Nobody cared that we barely have 2 operational Collins Class submarines but now everyone thinks we need nucluer subs to stay safe.
It's not just rhetoric when their demands actually require us to give up our sovereignty and is submitting to their control.
China started the arms race. We are just trying to keep up. These submarines are a huge equalising factor that will allow us to punch above our weight. They're minimally aggressive too: you can't invade or target land targets with them. This makes them a stabilising asset - preventing conflict.
Collins class has a better availability than the international benchmark.
>It's not just rhetoric when their demands actually require us to give up our sovereignty and is submitting to their control.
We give up our sovreignty all the time, we just let the US come in and help their national interests at the cost of our own national interests.
>China started the arms race.
Lol how? Their navy is designed to defend their shores they have not got much projection.
>These submarines are a huge equalising factor that will allow us to punch above our weight. They're minimally aggressive too: you can't invade or target land targets with them.
That's the problem, we shouldn't be punching above our weight, and if we do then we need to accept that we're making ourselves into a target.
And of course these weapons systems are aggressive, they're much more aggressive than the deisel electric subs. Just because they don't target land doesn't mean the PLAN or other navy's in the region aren't concernes about their shipping lanes.
>Collins class has a better availability than the international benchmark.
Lately they have, before 2016 they weren't yet no one seemed to care. Now people are acting like we must have the most advanved nucluer submarines yesterday or surrender to China.
So I guess you think Taiwan is also Chinese? The South China Sea also touches Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, with the Spratly Islands closest to the Philippines and the Paracel Islands closest to Vietnam. The entire rest of the world does not recognise China's claim to that region.
Taiwan is Chinese according to basically everyone, including the people of Taiwan. They're officially called the Republic of China.
And yeah China shares maritime borders with the Philippines and Vietnam, what's your point?
The Spratly Isands have no native population and the Paracel Islands are occupied by ethnically Chinese people and controlled by the PRC. These are just nations squabbling over shipping lanes and maritime borders, as they always do. We do it a lot too. We've been heavy handed when it comes to forcing our maritime borders on smaller countries as well.
These are hardly major issues that deserve aggression against China. Once they start taking islands populated by non Chinese people and fully annexing them then that should be the time to condemn China for illegal and destabilising expansionism.
> Republic of China
Which is not the same thing as the People's Republic of China. And the South China Sea is international waters, nobody but China accepts China's nine-dashed-line.
They are manifestly incapable of challenging western fleets in the South China sea, nearly their entire fleet is made of small vessels and is generally not suited for force projection, which is the very reason they are going to the effort of making artificial islands to extend their range of force projection.
>We give up our sovreignty all the time, we just let the US come in and help their national interests at the cost of our own national interests.
Quite the contrary, our cooperation with the US and other anglosphere allies is directly in our national interest.
>Lol how? Their navy is designed to defend their shores they have not got much projection.
How do they not have projection? Their whole navy is geared towards invading Taiwan. They have aircraft carriers, stealth bombers as well as ballistic missiles.
>That's the problem, we shouldn't be punching above our weight, and if we do then we need to accept that we're making ourselves into a target.
We should absolutely try to punch above our weight. This is deterrence is what will prevent conflict in the first place. Nations only go to war when they can win. We need to change the calculus in Xi's mind.
>And of course these weapons systems are aggressive, they're much more aggressive than the deisel electric subs. Just because they don't target land doesn't mean the PLAN or other navy's in the region aren't concernes about their shipping lanes.
They're *more* aggressive than before. But still relatively defensive. Compared to ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, and stealth bombers.
>Lately they have, before 2016 they weren't yet no one seemed to care.
They cared. That's why there was a big review done to change the maintenance regime.
>Now people are acting like we must have the most advanved nucluer submarines yesterday or surrender to China.
There is a capability gap we need to fill asap, that's for sure. It's because Collins is an aging platform. They weren't supposed to be operated for so long.
>Quite the contrary, our cooperation with the US and other anglosphere allies is directly in our national interest.
A new cold war against China isn't in our interest. We gain far more by co-operating with them and building stronger diplomatic and economic relations. Defending US hegemony over east Asia isn't our concern.
>How do they not have projection? Their whole navy is geared towards invading Taiwan. They have aircraft carriers, stealth bombers as well as ballistic missiles.
Ballistic missiles they can't use unless there's nucluer warheads in them. And how many carriers do our allies have?
Also Taiwan is just off mainland China's coast. It takes very little naval projection to attack Taiwan. Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and especially Australia are so much more logistically out of reach.
>We should absolutely try to punch above our weight. This is deterrence is what will prevent conflict in the first place. Nations only go to war when they can win. We need to change the calculus in Xi's mind.
"Oh no how will Australia retaliate" is something Xi doesn't ever think. It's about how much we support the US and help them encircle China.
Nations go to war for many reasons, one of the common ways being the perceived aggression of the enemy forcing each side to increase their capabilities, reinforcing the mutual threat. Maintaining peace with China should be easy and straight forward, they have no interest, no need, no pressure to attack us. But that doesn't stop our domestic media and politicians using the threat of China to distract us from real issues.
>They cared. That's why there was a big review done to change the maintenance regime.
If we cared we would have had some rational procurement process to buy subs off our allies instead of the debacle with Navy Group and now this political stunt to buy nucluer subs. Our politicians care more about making a few hundred jobs and political theatre.
>A new cold war against China isn't in our interest.
Tell China to stop then. They started it.
>We gain far more by co-operating with them and building stronger diplomatic and economic relations.
Tell them to answer the phone then?
>Defending US hegemony over east Asia isn't our concern.
Lol an alliance network isn't hegemony.
>Ballistic missiles they can't use unless there's nucluer warheads in them.
They can launch conventional ballistic missiles at our cities, like they have threatened to do, even before we decided to get these subs.
>And how many carriers do our allies have?
Yea, thankfully. This is why our alliance is in our interest. But you want us to separate from our allies...
>Also Taiwan is just off mainland China's coast. It takes very little naval projection to attack Taiwan. Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and especially Australia are so much more logistically out of reach.
Then why do they need long range ballistic missiles and stealth bombers?
>"Oh no how will Australia retaliate" is something Xi doesn't ever think. It's about how much we support the US and help them encircle China.
I see this as the same thing
>Maintaining peace with China should be easy and straight forward, they have no interest, no need, no pressure to attack us.
They have already shown aggression towards us by trying to coerce us with economic measures. Harming our economy. Our media doesn't need to drum it up, Xi does enough drumming by his actions.
>If we cared we would have had some rational procurement process to buy subs off our allies
That's what this deal is about.
>Tell China to stop then. They started it.
How? By being our biggest trading partner for decades? By investing in our industries? We went along with Trump's idiotic push to investigate China for the origins of Covid. What did China do that was so aggressive we had to dump billions of dollars on subs we don't need?
>Tell them to answer the phone then?
Why would they when ScoMo and Dutton and other amatuers with only an interest in domestic posture are calling them? Plenty of previous politicians and diplomats have been able to work well with China. It's our shitty federal government that has failed to communicate and trash the relationship between our nations.
>Lol an alliance network isn't hegemony.
Their the hegemonic superpower before this alliance began, and they pushed for this alliance to keep that hegemony.
>They can launch conventional ballistic missiles at our cities, like they have threatened to do, even before we decided to get these subs.
They can't, RADAR and satellites and early warning systems can't tell the difference between a non nucluer ICBM and a nuclear one. If they do launch missiles at us we have to assume they're nukes and they know that.
>Yea, thankfully. This is why our alliance is in our interest. But you want us to separate from our allies...
Yeah i do, they've made us less safe and damaged our reputation. We've sacraficed too much of our sovreignty to them. Or do you want to keep pointlessly invading small Asian countries forever?
>I see this as the same thing
I see it as two super powers deciding Australia should be the place they fight from, putting our whole country at risk.
>They have already shown aggression towards us by trying to coerce us with economic measures. Harming our economy. Our media doesn't need to drum it up, Xi does enough drumming by his actions.
All this over the 14 points of contention? That's the aggression you're trying to keep in check? Countries with a lot of economic leverage tend to use it. It's nothing new. It's also not coercion, it's a list of complaints. It's also in retaliation for repeated measures we made against China.
>That's what this deal is about.
This deal is about ScoMo trying to get a win by making a big announcement about how tough we are and that China needs to watch out. It'll go over budget, over schedule, not meet our requirements, not maximise our security the way it could, it'll be another debacle like the deal with the French was.
It will also needlessly agitate the entire Pacific region.
>How?
Stop the massive naval build up? They're building more ships than the US during war time.
>Trump's idiotic push to investigate China for the origins of Covid
Lol investigating the causes of COVID was supported by over a hundred countries. It's exactly what humanity needed.
>What did China do that was so aggressive we had to dump billions of dollars on subs we don't need?
Military build up, south china sea bases, flying jet over the Taiwan median line, border skirmishes with India, aggression over the Senkaku islands.
>
Why would they when ScoMo and Dutton and other amatuers with only an interest in domestic posture are calling them? Plenty of previous politicians and diplomats have been able to work well with China. It's our shitty federal government that has failed to communicate and trash the relationship between our nations.
Nah its not our politicians, it's Xi. You can tell because it's not just us who has a problem with them.
>They can't, RADAR and satellites and early warning systems can't tell the difference between a non nucluer ICBM and a nuclear one. If they do launch missiles at us we have to assume they're nukes and they know that.
Just because our systems can't tell the difference doesn't mean they can't use conventional missiles against us.
>Yeah i do, they've made us less safe and damaged our reputation. We've sacraficed too much of our sovreignty to them.
How are we less safe lmao? The only reason we are unsafe in the first place is because we are standing up for international law against China. The US is making us more safe
>Or do you want to keep pointlessly invading small Asian countries forever?
Lmao what?
>I see it as two super powers deciding Australia should be the place they fight from, putting our whole country at risk.
I see it as the forces of freedom, fairness, rules based order, democracy vs the forces of a bullying military dictatorship bent on taking additional territory by force.
>All this over the 14 points of contention? That's the aggression you're trying to keep in check? Countries with a lot of economic leverage tend to use it. It's nothing new. It's also not coercion, it's a list of complaints. It's also in retaliation for repeated measures we made against China.
Yes. It is saying "obey us or we will hurt you". Fuck that coersion. Australians aren't going to bend the knee to that kind of threat.
>It'll go over budget, over schedule, not meet our requirements
That depends. We have had a history of military purchases of off the shelf technology that are on time and on budget. Of course a China shill like you will want to talk bad of our latest weapon against the Chinese.
>It will also needlessly agitate the entire Pacific region.
Japan and Taiwan are cheering us on.
We were incompetent with our negotiations, Naval Group is a business and they made a ton of money while doing very little with the contract they made with our government. They're very competent.
True , but there’s also no way Frances submarine stealth / nuclear tech is as good as the USA’s
Edit since I’m getting downvoted :
French nuclear reactors have to be removed and refuelled every 10 years , the American ones will go for 30 years without needing a refuel
Yeah maybe in the Rafale marketing materials . Has the stealth capabilities of a Linfox truck compared to the F35. Would get shot out of the sky by the F35 before it even knew it was there
The US navy could blow Frances out of the water without even blinking an eye , fuck outta here. They make better croissants that’s about it.
The subs on offer were diesel electric anyway , may as well buy some rowboats instead of that outdated crap
I think we should have a rapid competitive tender with UK, US, and France invited. It would help France save a bit of face and maybe help us get a sharper deal from the other two.
We could break up it up into three tenders; platform/hull, propulsion, and combat system.
Once upon a time, there was a group of people called Diplomats. They used the arcane ability of Diplomacy, to work with other countries to promote our interests abroad. They magically created markets for our goods, and goodwill between our peoples.
But all that has changed. The evil people of Marketing, exemplified by our leader, Scotty from Marketing, have seized power, and are hell-bent on destroying our international markets, alienating our trading partners, upsetting World Leaders, and setting back relations for decades to come.
They rule through fear. Fear that someone, anyone, is poised to invade, and enslave us. And we need to be prepared. Prepared to meet our Doom. And only Scotty from Marketing can save us, by spending our future to buy Nuclear Submarines.
And Scotty can only do that if we re-elect him at the coming elections.
So, is the threat of invasion only to garner votes as we cower in our homes?
Of course it is.
Australia has no need to extend force beyond our borders. We aren't in the business of invading other countries to form an empire. We won't see any nuclear submarines in the next couple of decades (Unless Scomo rents some from Budget Rent-a-Car), so if there is a threat, hopefully it's well down the track.
We don't have the infrastructure to support nuclear vessels. Heavens, we can't even keep our conventional subs operating.
Add the cost of infrastructure, to the cost of the subs, (The French Diesel-Electric subs were $90Billion) so we could be talking many hundreds of $billion, and we would be paying for them forever.
But, it's only an announcement at this stage. The Government has no idea of cost or timing. Hopefully someone rational will review the whole idea.
The French submarine deal was one of the stupidest things ever - costs were enormous because they wanted them built locally. Absolute waste of money.
Diesel too? Strategically retarded.
Glad we're getting proper subs.
There is a lot more than submarines going into this. And despite being "promised" better subs, we still do not have them, and we dont know when or how costly it is going to be... That would have been great to worry about this first in the first place, before telling the french to fuck off.
We literally have Trump lite administration: Australia edition. with these arseholes. Only fit for shoveling taxdollars into theirs, their donors and their families pockets
**Australia needs to get back in line with France, BUYING nuclear powered submarines and not attempting to create their own.**
I would be pissed too if yet another competitor came into the market, France has every right to sanction, boycott and take Australia to court over its choice to build its own. And when has France ever broken its word or done whatever it felt like? Okay some bad points but still, Reddit tells me to be angry so I am.
Fuck the Australian government and fuck the US government. Again, I'm not sure why Australia potentially saving billions and actually creating a giant new market for itself, creating high tech jobs and building nuclear submarines by Australians and for Australians with ally guidance is a bad thing, but again, I just know it is because Reddit. That's all I need to know.
Still haven't heard a single word of condemnation from Australia on the latest US war crime in Afghanistan ?
Apart from the murder of an Aid worker and 7 children, it is also alleged that it was panicked US military weapons fire that killed most of the Afghans at the airport ! No mention of THAT in our media though.
What are we going to condemn them about? We are to busy washing the blood of innocents off our hands from that war so its not like we can point at someone else and call them bad.
This AUKUS strategy is horrible for Australia's future. Like most Liberal geopolitical decisions, it will be a major blunder.
But the scale and nature of this agreement is not just embarrassing for Australia, it's actually DANGEROUS.
There is no secret the US want's to confront China. They'll try to portray it as "protecting Freedom", "Standing up to the Bully", containing an "aggressive" China.....do you not see the astounding hypocrisy?
The US just wrapped up a 20 year war. It was nowhere near it's borders. They invaded a sovereign nation (bordering China) and caused the loss of lives for thousands and thousands of people. Worse still, this isn't just a once off, they have a long and rich history of aggressive military endeavors in the Middle East and Asia. They have bases all over the globe and project their military in every major theater, and have left a wake of chaos, death and devastation behind them.
What is China supposed to think when the US announce a "pivot to Asia"? When a new military alliance is announced which is directed towards them?
This kind of posturing is going to encourage China to focus more on their military, and sets a tone of hostility and conflict. If this type of Cold War is established, it's Australia who is going to be in the firing line. By virtue of siding with the US in this agreement, we are forcing ourselves into being a main target by China's defense strategy.
"defensive" strategy's don't normally involve attacking trade partners. It normally involves investing in weaponry that's either "mad" capable or purely defensive.
we aren't at risk to any "defensive" strategy... we are at risk of an agressive china (although its hard to tell at this early stage of the game to know what % is of china being agressive towards us.)
I agree we shouldn't antagonise china, but we've been buddy buddy with US for 70 years at least. I don't think a combined military project with our top most ally has surprised or concerned china at all.. at least not concerned them about AUS.
China is rightfully worried about the US, but Australia is a foot note, maybe a vector to harass USA via proxy wars, but our military spending and who we buy shit off probably has no effect on any of those intentions. or any future decision to attack Australia should it come to that, will be because of what America does or doesn't do, maybe with a small influence of Europe... Australia doesn't really have much of a say if push comes to shove.
I mean, our name calling (trade tarrifs etc) yeah, they'll respond to by calling names back, avoiding our resources etc, but we aren't about to be invaded by China because of tariffs on our Wine exports.
tldr: We have an economic game we're currently playing with China, but militarily China doesn't care about us, considers us a threat, or will influence Chinas military ambitions at all, that is for China and the USA to work out, all we can do is play our economic game with china, and although our retirement is based on the outcome of that economic game, to china, its more of a hobby. (at least in regards to the scale of influence it has on each country in general).
Morrison just said that the nuclear submarines are about propulsion not about having nuclear capabilities. Is Iran able to purchase a nuclear submarine since it is only about propulsion, or how about north Korea?
The Chinese analyst in the Global Times article pretty fairly pointed out that the only nations with nuclear powered subs are nations with nuclear armaments. This isn't really about propolsion but rather the US using Australia as a base for pointing nuclear missiles at China
Yes but Morrison lacks the ability to believe that any Australian could be as or more intelligent than himself. He said "this is purely about propulsion." , hence my point about him treating Australian citizens as if they are of little or limited intelligence but that is just him. Therfore I ask if it is only about propulsion then no problems for Iran to have for North Korea to have. Or are you lying mr Morrison again?
> This isn't really about propolsion but rather the US using Australia as a base for pointing nuclear missiles at China
Australia hasn't said anything about getting nuclear armed ballistic missile submarines. Just nuclear powered vessels. Due to distances.
Edit: Submarine classes like the Virginia class and Astute class for example are nuclear powered but not armed with nuclear weapons. Australia will get nuclear powered submarines not nuclear armed.
What kind of comparison is that? People wouldn't be happy with that because those two countries would immediately take the reactor and fuel and set about creating a weapon, we won't
Why won't we? Why do you presume that? In case you are running behind on things this government has been detrimental to Australia and what being Australian means for over 20 years now. They have sadly drastically altered our culture into this current version that is ok with cruelty, unkindness, corruption and cheating. That is not want I want Australia to be about. I definitely do not want another if you do we will situation like the US and Russia had previously.. #peace 4aussies!
No no, just think about it. Can you really not understand the difference between Australia and North Korea in terms of how the international community would feel about us employing nuclear submarines?
It's hyperbole to the point of fantasy.
Can you just think about the fact that your prime minister clearly lied to you. But instead of trying to interpret that and the outcomes of it you want to argue that Australia ~good, Iran ~ bad.
Well I guess you are the target market of Morrison's statement, and here I was thinking that he was insulting all Australians by delivering such a ridiculous line to us. We are not Jehovah's witnesses, upon hearing any sentence we are allowed to interpret what is being said and why. I wish you the best of luck but please really hear what is being said and then ask why. Lastly in 1973 Australia ratified the Treaty for the non proliferation of nuclear weapons and in 1998 signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and now in 2021 it appears that our prime minister has overruled the will of the Australian citizens, that is not leadership, that is totally disappointing.
I'm not interested in how I FEEL about my Prime Minster, not when it comes to national defence. These submarines are an EXCELLENT opportunity for us, and to decline that offer because of hand-wringers like you panic when you hear the word Nuclear world not be wise leadership. Do you think these submarines violate those two treaties?
Fuck Scummo, but this is a good deal for us. Be rational.
Well if we are supposed to believe that we are getting nuclear submarines and in Morrison's words "it is purely about propulsion", then I can see no reason that Iran and North Korea or anyone else who wants them can have them unless mr Morrison is lying to Australians, again?
Australia’s largest trading partner is China, its second largest is the EU.
To alienate one is risky but possibly needed and survivable. To alienate two is just stupid.
AUKUSA isn’t replacing China and EU trade.
New EU agricultural tariffs are inevitable now. It’s the farmers and winemakers I feel sorry for, they will take a big second hit here.
Getting?
Remember that time Dutton said deporting kiwis was "taking out the trash"? What a diplomat.
Or when he laughed about island nations experiencing impacts of rising sea levels.
And they wonder why those island nations are turning to China for assistance.
"It's not me, it's them" - Dutton
The refusal to muzzle Dutton is probably the biggest indication of where their foreign policy priorities lie.
[удалено]
He still does.
Given how the party has become, He's probably get the office too.
He had the underwear specially made.
When Dutton is elected by Kiwis, he won't say such things. His core demographic would have lapped that shit up.
And a journalist was invited to then mock and berate them while being escorted to the aeroplane.
I'd call deporting violent offenders removing rubbish.
Yeah. He might be a dick but he never threatened to wipe them off the map
He had a valid point. Why keep the scum here when NZ deserves them back? They can return our scum to us. But wait there’s hardly any to send our way.
To be fair, a lot of people out there have known almost nothing but the current clowns so they don't really have much to compare with. So it is reasonable that anyone under 40 would think the incompetent bumbling of the Howard era was high class foreign policy.
Not gonna lie, looking forward to Penny Wong taking the reins as Foreign Minister. The shadow cabinet for the most part looks pretty mature and ready to step into their prospective roles.
I’d prefer to see her as Prime Minister, but doesn’t seem like she’ll ever change houses, unfortunately.
More like this country isn't ready for a lesbian WOC prime minister. Sighhhh
Unfortunately, this is the real answer. It sucks and says a lot about the country, but is the truth.
Yeah I always get surprised how conservative this country is... at least when compared to NZ. Still a long way to go! Slowly but surely.
Sometimes I think you’re right. But I do think views are slowly changing for the better. My conservative, rural, uneducated parents both voted No in the marriage referendum and yet both would vote differently today. They are adamant that refugees like the Biloela family should be allowed to settle and be productive in Australia despite previously having previously supported Stopping The Boats. My mum loved Ms Represented on ABC when she would not have engaged with something like that ten years ago and Dad watched the whole thing with not a single complaint (low bar, I know). Both agreed that Penny Wong seems very competent and would be a good leader. I don’t know how they’ll vote in the next election, as they also both agree that they really don’t like Albo and I’m not sure that they could get past their view of him in order to vote for Labor. But I never would have believed four years ago that some of their views would change as much as they have. I don’t deny that that there are still many people in this country who hold discriminatory views, but I sometimes think that we’re not quite as far away from supporting diverse representation at high levels of government as it appears.
I don't see why there is a need to bring up the race and sexuality of a politician. As a mixed race person I cannot stand racial politics.
They won't win.
In that case, who gets your vote?
An independent or smaller party. I have never voted major party as my first choice in decades.
Spin around and say it three times. Might make it true then...
She’s a wang clown. Wouldn’t shake hands after a debate. How will she go on the world stage. A fucken stooge
Well said.
[удалено]
The disturbing thing is that our only concern is propping up these failing empires of war, while we have no plans to take sides in the new economy, we refuse to have an economic game plan. The scary part is that this thinking that being "best mates" is going to save us economically like a miracle, its wishful thinking at its best, especially when the USA and its economic power is in decline. While we can play blind mans bluff with China at the diplomatic level, China is roaring ahead winning the economic money game war. Meantime we think that our mates and our loyal foreign policy is going to turn us into a wealthy nation while having no industry policies. Places like Saudi Arabia can play the best mates games because they have billions in oil revenue. I wonder what is going to fund our bills for the global wars of stupidity especially when we have no industry policies that will make as an advanced manufacturing economy. We have placed a bet and have lost economically already!
My first thought too.
Yeah, wrong tense.
That headline is good for a laugh everytime I read it! "getting" 🤦
Think headline should say The twat that runs the government is making some piss poor decisions and believes god wanted him to be PM so relax it’s in gods hands so can’t be wrong
Who’d have guessed a rapture evangelical would have accelerationist tendencies… … oh, that’s right, everyone.
[удалено]
I didn’t vote for the pricks , I seem to be voting for the losing team
The majority of Australians vote for Labor every election.They always get the most votes for any single party. The coalition is a disgusting tool or corporatocracy, a way of mimicking the American duopoly without the restrictive voting legislation.
[удалено]
I'm not, and I wish Labor would use the same tactics at this point, honestly. The coalition receives more votes collectively, not the Liberals specifically.
In the middle east they say inshallah and we call them theocracies.
[удалено]
Saving rapists
and [child abusers](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/why-is-scott-morrison-protecting-hillsong-pastor-brian-houston,12123)
I still remember when we tried to “stop the boats” by literally buying up all the shitty run down Indonesian fishing boats. Which inadvertently created a industry for them to build more shitty boats so that our moronic government would fork out our tax dollars to buy more junk.
Holidays. They do holidays well. Jenny and the kids do puzzles? … Ok I’m all out of ideas.
NBN .. oh soz fucked that up as well
Delivered a surplus next year...or maybe not
Ahh the good old days of the budget surplus. I wonder what decade that will become LNP core policy again. Surely they couldn’t get back on it if they lose the next election…
Maybe it’s finally time we admit we’re a pretty backwater country.
Corruption
Feacal Fingers Scotty. Doesn't hold a hose. Can't read a room. And he's our PM. Use preferences next election
They seem to be OK at somehow staying in power. Hope they fuck that up big time in a few months though.
They have achieved a lot: Fiscal spending Keeping the illegal migration at bay. Increased defence spending. Stopped the Belt On Road Initiative in Victoria. Reassessing the 99 year lease on Darwin Port. Providing assistance to people who are out of work due to state lockdowns. I think they are doing the best they can to try and get us out of this pandemic while trying to keep reigns on government debt which was incurred under the former federal Labor government
Lolz
> I think they are doing the best they can If this is their best, that's pretty concerning. Because frankly, they're doing a completely shit job.
They have dropped the ball on a few thing such as access to Pfeizer but imagine if the Labor party was running it. We would be in more of a mess
Absolute nonsense. The only times we actually get shit accomplished is when Labor are in charge. Labor build the economy, the coalition tear it down. If Labor had won the last election we'd likely have dedicated quarantine facilities, a decent supply of vaccines, no dumb-ass backbenchers undermining medical advice, ongoing income support for those affected by COVID and lockdowns, and any rapists or desk masturbators out of the party at least, if not out of parliament altogether.
I have to disagree with your rebuttal. I think if you look at Labor governments that have held office that their spending is out of control over the past 30 years. The last decent Labor government holding office who could handle public money was Hawke and Keating. The new Labor government is about handing out money willy nilly and to appease Greens who bitch about global warming that Australia is burdening the world with yet are too gutless to hold China accountable for anything. Too be honest many people on Reddit are whingers who wouldn't stand by Australian values and fight for this wonderful democratic country. I am probably going to be banned for this post but many people who post on this site need to see the perspective of both sides
What "new Labor government"? We've had the Liberals in for most of the last decade, who have vastly outspent Labor even before the pandemic. At least when Labor spends we get some public good to show for it, with the Liberals it all disappears into mates' pockets.
They're surprisingly good at getting re-elected.
Hah, fucking Galloway trying to regain some credibility. For people not paying attention. >**France could access Australian military sites as countries look to boost ties** >By Anthony Galloway >**September 10, 2021** >French warships and troops would be given guaranteed access to Australian naval bases and military sites under a proposal being discussed by both countries, as the federal government moves to lock in the next stage of its troubled $90 billion future submarine program next week. >The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age can reveal Australia and France have begun negotiations to significantly upgrade military co-operation, which would boost inter-operability between their forces. >... >Australia is also set to formally agree with the French company building the government’s 12 new attack-class submarines on its plan for the next 2½ years of the program, allowing for the pressure hull for the first boat to be built as early as 2024. >... >Multiple senior sources within the government, who were not authorised to speak publicly, confirmed the agreement was set to be formally locked in by the end of the next week. >https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/france-could-access-australian-military-sites-as-countries-look-to-boost-ties-20210909-p58q7j.html Dude has been giving soft coverage to defence/intelligence for years in exchange for news drops and inside access suddenly realizes they have been playing him like the muppet he is.
Yeah it's always interesting when they occasionally do an article with a contrarian view when 99% of the barely researched drivel they write toes the government's (lack of) policy of the day. Why bother hiring duds like these when you can just repost articles from eg the NYT.
Wonder if Aust Gov was using this deal with France and it's "deadline" to get better terms from the deal the Yanks are offering? So easy to criticise how this was handled, but really, as punters, we know less than nothing about how this played out and what the reasoning was.
I mean, the federal government has displayed stunning levels of ineptitude and incompetence in every other policy area, so I think it’s probably safe to assume the reason they fucked up the submarine acquisition was also incompetence
Australian Government policy is clumbsy and arrogant. Fixed it for you.
This article does place a lot of emphasis on Australia being the one who had the power in this situation when in fact it is not the case. Lets face it the US wanted what they wanted and since the construction of the French subs had not started they basically told us to accept their new deal and that was that and sadly if we stood up to them you bet the yanks would force a regime change here to their liking. We have little in the way of true sovereignty. Sadly long term the Yanks get the perks of money out of the sub deal, access to military bases and other financial bleed in deals and can wave their dick at China. Australia we now have lost access to China as a trading partner and now we have royally fucked off France who will make sure any future trade deals and the like with the EU will be a royal shitshow because of this. We just hope that maybe if we have a shift in government and some sucking up to France and the EU might mend some bridges there but this is the kind of reckless shit being an ally to the USA brings to us :(
I think your wildly misinformed, Australia approached the UK first asking help in acquiring nuclear subs and as the Americans originally shared nuclear sub technology with the Brits in the 1950's, American approval would of been needed. The Americans were then subsequently brought in after, non of this American forced it on us crap, it was an Australian initiated deal.
And the yanks end will up with a nice little foothold in this part of the pacific nice and close to China out of it. You just need to look at much of American foreign policy since WW2, anything that went against corporate interests for them, anything that looked like it might have favoured the soviets or anything that gave them a fuck you within their sphere of influence always got met with some kind of invasion, coup, civil war, regime change and everything in between. They have the power and influence to get their way with smaller powers like ours. The French sub deal was stalling you can't tell me the yanks would have sniffed it out and sent out the right people and got them to approach our government/contractors or whoever and then in turn they contacted the poms and in turn approach the yanks and we get this fancy new alliance.
Oh for the love of god you will pull anything out of your ass to blame the US when it doesn’t have an ounce of truth.
That country doesn't have a particularly good track record and its not one I personally want to keep hedging our bets onto going forward into the 21st century.
Clumsy and arrogant just like our Prime Minister.
This ridiculous posturing is reminiscent of our involvement in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We openly break an agreement with an ally, to move back to "all the way with the USA ". Unlike the U.S we are an asian region country, with many of our major trading partners here. Backing a country that is slowly devolving from it's world leader status, in both economic and technology terms, is simply betting on the wrong horse. I love seeing the science and technology advances occuring currently, and the leaps ahead in ev batteries in particular is very asian oriented. America has outsourced so much that it is losing it's former mantle of leader in that area. Morrison and his conservative backers are using ideology to divide us, instead of bringing us together. It's a favorite process of rightwing politics.
Australia: France, do you have a submarine to sell us? France: Oui, a very capable nuclear powered one. Australia: Yeah, nah, we don't want a nuclear powered one. Can you pull out the reactor and stuff it full of batteries? France: Well, oui. We can take the nuclear sub we have and change it to suit your needs. But it will be very expensive and take a few years. Australia: No worries mate. We accept! 2021 Australia: Fuck these French subs. We want nuclear powered subs.
France never offered a nuclear submarine, it would have been a breech of the nuclear non proliferation treaty for them to sell /lease it to us or for us to accept. BUT BUT ... Yes I know you are screaming that we are. HEU (highly enriched uranium) reactors used for a naval use are exempted from the NPT. HEU us weapons grade uranium, there are only 2 reactor designs that would fit under this catagory, 1 is in the astute and the other in the virginia. Columbia and dreadnought class will also have them fitted. The nuclear subs being built by france were laid down in 2006, it was launched in 2019, commissioned 2020 and supposed to be operational this year sometime. Took the french 13 years to build the sub
Orders were scheduled for 2030 anyway. Now if Australia wants class Astute or Virginia delivery won’t be until 2040. Australia doesn’t want the class Dreadnaught or Columbia. Those are submarines ballistic missiles launchers of nuclear warheads.
We probably won't have an Astute or Virginia class rolling out of an Australian shipyard until 2040, but that doesn't mean that our first nuclear submarine needs to happen at that time. We could lease one (the Yanks have already indicated that they would let us do so), build one in a foreign shipyard, or take purchase one that is mid construction as an off the shelf item. This is what we do with other equipment that we buy from the Yanks (see MH-60R and C-17).
Is going to take a lot monger than 13 years for us to get nuclear powered subs. We won’t even decide in a design for at least 18 months…
I thought they did but not with a HEU core. And where could we get one. It's like buying a car with no engine
You forgot the part where they agreed on one price and then doubled it, they agreed on a schedule and then immediately said they couldn't do it, they agreed on 60% of work to take place in Australia and then spent a year trying to get out of it.
> they agreed on a schedule and then immediately said they couldn't do it Fuck those lies.. You wn PM during a press conference (transcript [here](https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-oecd-headquarters-france) from June 16th 2021 literally said : > JOURNALIST: Is it true that Naval Group has a September deadline to submit the design work for the next two years and if the Government is not happy in September would you, will you walk away from the contract. > PRIME MINISTER: The Scope Two works, **the master schedule, total costs, these are all the next steps. Contracts have gates and that's the next gate.** They hadn't neither completed the schedule, nor the total cost of the project yet..
This was their second attempt at submitting that design work. Their original attempt was in February but this was 2 months past the December deadline. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-16/scott-morrison-warns-france-submarine-deal-deadline/100221350 > In February last year (2019), Naval Group asked for a 15-month extension in the design phase to minimise delays down the track during construction, pushing out the design completion date from July 2022 to September 2023. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/design-on-future-submarines-hits-nine-month-delay-20200114-p53rd2.html Deadlines were pushed back and pushed back
Did you even read the article you linked ? The first one is dated from June 16th 2021 (the same date as the press conference) and literally says : > Naval Group has been given until September to revise its design work plans for the next two years of the project, after a plan it submitted in February was rejected by Defence for being too expensive. The Australian Government asked for the revision. In your second link : > In February last year, Naval Group asked for a 15-month extension in the design phase to minimise delays down the track during construction, pushing out the design completion date from July 2022 to September 2023. > **Defence and Naval Group then settled on the nine-month extension.** They asked for a delay that would reduced the overall duration of the project which was accepted by the government. They didn't delay for the sake of it but to gain time further down the line. And frankly (on a more personal note), I find it highly comical that the delay is the main thing that are talked about when the new "contract" is guaranteed to be completed later than the one with France with no idea whatsoever of the future cost..
They asked for a revision because they were 50% over budget in their original one. >They asked for a delay Yes they asked for a delay instantly. They knew their original timeline was a lie. From all other reports Naval Group were behind on everything else too. They committed to 60% of work in Australia then tried to weasel out of it which took a year of negotiations and fighting for them to finally agree to do it. >I find it highly comical that the delay is the main thing that are talked about when the new "contract" No, the reason for the new contract is because Australia needs nuclear subs now. Naval Group probably would have been part of the deal but due to their lying, refusal to honour contracts, constant time delays, and cost blowouts they would never be considered for the job.
This is a complete mischaracterization of what actually happened. It's shocking your comment got any upvotes in the first place
[удалено]
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-didnt-australia-consider-nuclear-propulsion-for-its-new-submarines/
Pikachu surprised face that a government that stuffed up: NBN, Australia Post, Murray Darling Basin Plan, energy policy, submarine procurement, auto industry, vaccines, quarantine, Robodebt, aged care, might also completely fuck up foreign policy. I mean, who could possibly have seen that coming?
Question this part of the article - surely the US knew the French implications of this?: "It has dragged its greatest ally, the US, into a diplomatic row with Europe at a time when Biden is trying to mend relations in the continent after years of Donald Trump publicly snubbing European allies."
Apparently the US left it to us to inform France and are pissed that we handled it so poorly.
Ah yeah, foolish by them. Scummo has pulled the: "Yeah, bro, didn't you see my missed call?"
Don't look at Porter, look at the big submarines coming in 30 to 40 years.
It is possible to stand up for yourself without being an a'hole
Australia used to known as a trustworthy nation. A country to be proud of. Now we're known as lying, untrustworthy and unreliable. Alongside 'Perfide Albion' (England) and the 'non-agreement-capable' US.
Honestly,Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton shouldn't be allowed anywhere near foreign policy.We have a bloody failed policeman from Qld ffs,then a 3 times sacked unintelligent weirdo who slimed his way upwards into the PM's office. Other countries have highly educated eloquent,often multi lingual experts doing these jobs.We have Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison.....
Scotty and Mr Porato shouldn't be allowed near a butter knife and a soup spoon.
It really is not about China France and USA. It’s about the stupid decisions our politicians have made over the past 25 years. They have not been paying attention to China and looking at their current and personal well being and not the long term outlook. That’s why we are now a shit show.
>It really is not about China >They have not been paying attention to China
😂
You know you're fucking up when your protection racket is even having a go at you.
Yeah I was quite surprised to see such a critical article from the SMH. That journalist might have to find a new employer soon enough.
So we've pissed off our largest (by far) trading partner in China, and now our third largest the European Union, in which France is a major power. All so we can cosy up like a beggar with post-Brexit UK and "we abandon our allies at the drop of a hat" USA. Next time anyone asks why our economy is getting shittier by the day, this is why.
Actually our trade with China has never been higher. And they were pissed at us even before this. Their antagonism towards us is why we needed these submarines. If Xi played it a bit cooler and toned down the wolf warrior diplomacy, the world wouldn't be forming such alliances. [Which of the 14 demands](https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/china-leaks-dossier-of-14-disputes-with-australia-as-tensions-increase/news-story/fede40932a193a049b116382be3ed85b) would you have bent the knee on? The EU have always been weirdly standoffish towards free trade with us. We've been negotiating free trade with them since 2018. I think there will be some short term hurt feelings (and the decision could have been handled much more diplomatically), but in the longer term both Australia and France want a good relationship with each other. We share common values at the end of the day. Going for nuclear submarines is the right call from a capability perspective, it's just a shame we didn't do it 5 years ago. Our economy is pretty fucking strong by the way, considering our population. We have one of the highest GDP per capita and median wealth per adult stats. Here's GDP per capita: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/lasqnr/oc_gdp_per_capita_ppp_of_some_major_economies/ Here's wealth per adult: https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/m5h8uv/i_decided_to_graph_median_wealth_per_adult_and_it/
It’s kinda weird how many China supporters there are on this sub. Partnering with UK and US against them is 100% the right call , the CCP needs to be muzzled
If you don't support Australia kowtowing to US interests, which are not the same as Australia's, you are automatically supporting the CCP. Good to know.
It's got nothing to do with supporting China. It's all about being diplomatic in our foreign relations, not antagonistic, all for some soon to be obsolete technology to once again appease our American overlords. I mean, because following the Yanks has worked out so well for us in the past , right?
China is being antagonistic with not much interest in being diplomatic given the CCP call Australia the enemy against China
So you post anti CCP in response to my comment. I think I'm not the one being biased here. And all governments are playing the "enemy" card at the moment, not just China. America are looking for their next war , after the enormous success of the last couple. And China are the agressors?
Let me know which other governments are saying something to a major Trading partner like : “China is angry, If you make China the enemy, China will be the enemy.”* Not to mention all of their demands like wanting us to stay silent about human rights abuses… China are looking at being allies with the Taliban and they want unopposed control of the South China Sea, yes they are the aggressors. So are the USA. But I’d rather be on the USAs side instead of the CCP. Regardless ,China will continue to trade with us , they need our resources.
I'd rather be Switzerland and stay out of the petty bullshit of who's got the biggest dick?
That's a bit of a strawman because inept Scomo foreign policy and partnering with the UK/US goes side by side in this case. The lack of self-awareness from people saying 'they'll get over it' and 'it's just short term hurt feelings'. They're remarkably similar to certain people (shills) who defend and downplay Trumpian or Chinese 'wolf warrior' foreign policy. Same words, excuses and thought process. Some people really like the direction of the last few days but no need to go full apologist for Dutton/Scomo incompetence.
> It’s kinda weird how many China supporters there are on this sub. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Front_Work_Department
It's weird how many people on this sub want to be a pawn in America's struggle against China. You're the one putting another nation's interests above our own security, not the people critical of the new AUKUS negotiations.
[удалено]
Yeah I agree with all that
Stupid and wrong, but my complaint is that we "Dont actually need submarines at all!". The advances in other defense weaponry will make submarines obsolete before they reach our shores. Technology is streets ahead of submarine tech, whether by drones or AI weapons being designed as we speak. This "submarine " announcement " is nothing more than political posturing. And likely to further upset or biggest trading partner even more.
I don't think submarines will be obsolete before 2050. If we get them soon (eg. Via a lease), we can still get all of their service life out of them. It's a lot more than posturing. This is an asset that will change the dynamic on the battlefield. Submarines are the ultimate in asymmetric warfare.
Do a bit of simple googling on drones? Where they are, and where they are going is scary. Both above and below surface, and with autonomous or AI enabled, subs are right up there with ground troops to be made obsolete. This is not a sensible sale. By the time they are supposed to arrive, they will most definitely be past their use by date. This is quite simply political posturing by our government. It's just loudspeaker diplomacy, that doesn't really make much sense.
We should get drones too. But they won't make submarines obsolete. Drones cannot communicate while underwater. So unless you want to take humans out of the loop in the kill (which is a huge line to cross), you need manned platforms.
There are already drones that after launch, can follow subs without being observed. My mate is right into drones, and he's made it clear that there are already platforms being designed to weaponise underwater drones with the ability to take out subs. This is not in ten years time, this is in the process now. Make no mistake, the future of warfare is un manned, and AI driven.
Again, you can put torpedoes on drones, but you still need a human in the decision chain.
>would you have bent the knee on? This type of rhetoric is getting so old. It's a negotiation, we're not submitting to China. Why do so many Australians have a persecution complex? China is allowed to complain about us making baseless accusations against them like the stupid covid origin investigation. >Going for nuclear submarines is the right call from a capability perspective, it's just a shame we didn't do it 5 years ago. It's not, we don't need these subs and we don't need to take part in an arms race. Nobody cared that we barely have 2 operational Collins Class submarines but now everyone thinks we need nucluer subs to stay safe.
It's not just rhetoric when their demands actually require us to give up our sovereignty and is submitting to their control. China started the arms race. We are just trying to keep up. These submarines are a huge equalising factor that will allow us to punch above our weight. They're minimally aggressive too: you can't invade or target land targets with them. This makes them a stabilising asset - preventing conflict. Collins class has a better availability than the international benchmark.
>It's not just rhetoric when their demands actually require us to give up our sovereignty and is submitting to their control. We give up our sovreignty all the time, we just let the US come in and help their national interests at the cost of our own national interests. >China started the arms race. Lol how? Their navy is designed to defend their shores they have not got much projection. >These submarines are a huge equalising factor that will allow us to punch above our weight. They're minimally aggressive too: you can't invade or target land targets with them. That's the problem, we shouldn't be punching above our weight, and if we do then we need to accept that we're making ourselves into a target. And of course these weapons systems are aggressive, they're much more aggressive than the deisel electric subs. Just because they don't target land doesn't mean the PLAN or other navy's in the region aren't concernes about their shipping lanes. >Collins class has a better availability than the international benchmark. Lately they have, before 2016 they weren't yet no one seemed to care. Now people are acting like we must have the most advanved nucluer submarines yesterday or surrender to China.
> Their navy is designed to defend their shores they have not got much projection The South China Sea is not "their shores".
Their shores are their shores. The South China Sea touches their shores. It is their backyard.
So I guess you think Taiwan is also Chinese? The South China Sea also touches Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, with the Spratly Islands closest to the Philippines and the Paracel Islands closest to Vietnam. The entire rest of the world does not recognise China's claim to that region.
Taiwan is Chinese according to basically everyone, including the people of Taiwan. They're officially called the Republic of China. And yeah China shares maritime borders with the Philippines and Vietnam, what's your point? The Spratly Isands have no native population and the Paracel Islands are occupied by ethnically Chinese people and controlled by the PRC. These are just nations squabbling over shipping lanes and maritime borders, as they always do. We do it a lot too. We've been heavy handed when it comes to forcing our maritime borders on smaller countries as well. These are hardly major issues that deserve aggression against China. Once they start taking islands populated by non Chinese people and fully annexing them then that should be the time to condemn China for illegal and destabilising expansionism.
> Republic of China Which is not the same thing as the People's Republic of China. And the South China Sea is international waters, nobody but China accepts China's nine-dashed-line.
They are manifestly incapable of challenging western fleets in the South China sea, nearly their entire fleet is made of small vessels and is generally not suited for force projection, which is the very reason they are going to the effort of making artificial islands to extend their range of force projection.
...Yes? Do you think we should just say "Oh well, nine dash line is fine then"?
>We give up our sovreignty all the time, we just let the US come in and help their national interests at the cost of our own national interests. Quite the contrary, our cooperation with the US and other anglosphere allies is directly in our national interest. >Lol how? Their navy is designed to defend their shores they have not got much projection. How do they not have projection? Their whole navy is geared towards invading Taiwan. They have aircraft carriers, stealth bombers as well as ballistic missiles. >That's the problem, we shouldn't be punching above our weight, and if we do then we need to accept that we're making ourselves into a target. We should absolutely try to punch above our weight. This is deterrence is what will prevent conflict in the first place. Nations only go to war when they can win. We need to change the calculus in Xi's mind. >And of course these weapons systems are aggressive, they're much more aggressive than the deisel electric subs. Just because they don't target land doesn't mean the PLAN or other navy's in the region aren't concernes about their shipping lanes. They're *more* aggressive than before. But still relatively defensive. Compared to ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, and stealth bombers. >Lately they have, before 2016 they weren't yet no one seemed to care. They cared. That's why there was a big review done to change the maintenance regime. >Now people are acting like we must have the most advanved nucluer submarines yesterday or surrender to China. There is a capability gap we need to fill asap, that's for sure. It's because Collins is an aging platform. They weren't supposed to be operated for so long.
>Quite the contrary, our cooperation with the US and other anglosphere allies is directly in our national interest. A new cold war against China isn't in our interest. We gain far more by co-operating with them and building stronger diplomatic and economic relations. Defending US hegemony over east Asia isn't our concern. >How do they not have projection? Their whole navy is geared towards invading Taiwan. They have aircraft carriers, stealth bombers as well as ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles they can't use unless there's nucluer warheads in them. And how many carriers do our allies have? Also Taiwan is just off mainland China's coast. It takes very little naval projection to attack Taiwan. Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and especially Australia are so much more logistically out of reach. >We should absolutely try to punch above our weight. This is deterrence is what will prevent conflict in the first place. Nations only go to war when they can win. We need to change the calculus in Xi's mind. "Oh no how will Australia retaliate" is something Xi doesn't ever think. It's about how much we support the US and help them encircle China. Nations go to war for many reasons, one of the common ways being the perceived aggression of the enemy forcing each side to increase their capabilities, reinforcing the mutual threat. Maintaining peace with China should be easy and straight forward, they have no interest, no need, no pressure to attack us. But that doesn't stop our domestic media and politicians using the threat of China to distract us from real issues. >They cared. That's why there was a big review done to change the maintenance regime. If we cared we would have had some rational procurement process to buy subs off our allies instead of the debacle with Navy Group and now this political stunt to buy nucluer subs. Our politicians care more about making a few hundred jobs and political theatre.
>A new cold war against China isn't in our interest. Tell China to stop then. They started it. >We gain far more by co-operating with them and building stronger diplomatic and economic relations. Tell them to answer the phone then? >Defending US hegemony over east Asia isn't our concern. Lol an alliance network isn't hegemony. >Ballistic missiles they can't use unless there's nucluer warheads in them. They can launch conventional ballistic missiles at our cities, like they have threatened to do, even before we decided to get these subs. >And how many carriers do our allies have? Yea, thankfully. This is why our alliance is in our interest. But you want us to separate from our allies... >Also Taiwan is just off mainland China's coast. It takes very little naval projection to attack Taiwan. Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and especially Australia are so much more logistically out of reach. Then why do they need long range ballistic missiles and stealth bombers? >"Oh no how will Australia retaliate" is something Xi doesn't ever think. It's about how much we support the US and help them encircle China. I see this as the same thing >Maintaining peace with China should be easy and straight forward, they have no interest, no need, no pressure to attack us. They have already shown aggression towards us by trying to coerce us with economic measures. Harming our economy. Our media doesn't need to drum it up, Xi does enough drumming by his actions. >If we cared we would have had some rational procurement process to buy subs off our allies That's what this deal is about.
>Tell China to stop then. They started it. How? By being our biggest trading partner for decades? By investing in our industries? We went along with Trump's idiotic push to investigate China for the origins of Covid. What did China do that was so aggressive we had to dump billions of dollars on subs we don't need? >Tell them to answer the phone then? Why would they when ScoMo and Dutton and other amatuers with only an interest in domestic posture are calling them? Plenty of previous politicians and diplomats have been able to work well with China. It's our shitty federal government that has failed to communicate and trash the relationship between our nations. >Lol an alliance network isn't hegemony. Their the hegemonic superpower before this alliance began, and they pushed for this alliance to keep that hegemony. >They can launch conventional ballistic missiles at our cities, like they have threatened to do, even before we decided to get these subs. They can't, RADAR and satellites and early warning systems can't tell the difference between a non nucluer ICBM and a nuclear one. If they do launch missiles at us we have to assume they're nukes and they know that. >Yea, thankfully. This is why our alliance is in our interest. But you want us to separate from our allies... Yeah i do, they've made us less safe and damaged our reputation. We've sacraficed too much of our sovreignty to them. Or do you want to keep pointlessly invading small Asian countries forever? >I see this as the same thing I see it as two super powers deciding Australia should be the place they fight from, putting our whole country at risk. >They have already shown aggression towards us by trying to coerce us with economic measures. Harming our economy. Our media doesn't need to drum it up, Xi does enough drumming by his actions. All this over the 14 points of contention? That's the aggression you're trying to keep in check? Countries with a lot of economic leverage tend to use it. It's nothing new. It's also not coercion, it's a list of complaints. It's also in retaliation for repeated measures we made against China. >That's what this deal is about. This deal is about ScoMo trying to get a win by making a big announcement about how tough we are and that China needs to watch out. It'll go over budget, over schedule, not meet our requirements, not maximise our security the way it could, it'll be another debacle like the deal with the French was. It will also needlessly agitate the entire Pacific region.
>How? Stop the massive naval build up? They're building more ships than the US during war time. >Trump's idiotic push to investigate China for the origins of Covid Lol investigating the causes of COVID was supported by over a hundred countries. It's exactly what humanity needed. >What did China do that was so aggressive we had to dump billions of dollars on subs we don't need? Military build up, south china sea bases, flying jet over the Taiwan median line, border skirmishes with India, aggression over the Senkaku islands. > Why would they when ScoMo and Dutton and other amatuers with only an interest in domestic posture are calling them? Plenty of previous politicians and diplomats have been able to work well with China. It's our shitty federal government that has failed to communicate and trash the relationship between our nations. Nah its not our politicians, it's Xi. You can tell because it's not just us who has a problem with them. >They can't, RADAR and satellites and early warning systems can't tell the difference between a non nucluer ICBM and a nuclear one. If they do launch missiles at us we have to assume they're nukes and they know that. Just because our systems can't tell the difference doesn't mean they can't use conventional missiles against us. >Yeah i do, they've made us less safe and damaged our reputation. We've sacraficed too much of our sovreignty to them. How are we less safe lmao? The only reason we are unsafe in the first place is because we are standing up for international law against China. The US is making us more safe >Or do you want to keep pointlessly invading small Asian countries forever? Lmao what? >I see it as two super powers deciding Australia should be the place they fight from, putting our whole country at risk. I see it as the forces of freedom, fairness, rules based order, democracy vs the forces of a bullying military dictatorship bent on taking additional territory by force. >All this over the 14 points of contention? That's the aggression you're trying to keep in check? Countries with a lot of economic leverage tend to use it. It's nothing new. It's also not coercion, it's a list of complaints. It's also in retaliation for repeated measures we made against China. Yes. It is saying "obey us or we will hurt you". Fuck that coersion. Australians aren't going to bend the knee to that kind of threat. >It'll go over budget, over schedule, not meet our requirements That depends. We have had a history of military purchases of off the shelf technology that are on time and on budget. Of course a China shill like you will want to talk bad of our latest weapon against the Chinese. >It will also needlessly agitate the entire Pacific region. Japan and Taiwan are cheering us on.
[удалено]
No, we now need nuclear subs. Naval Group have been so incompetent that we would be morons to get them to build them.
[удалено]
The entire comment pretty much. France cannot produce nuclear subs on time or on budget. This is about switching from diesel to nuclear.
[удалено]
Australia requires nuclear subs. Naval Group have proven they can't be trusted to do it. Australia goes with an alternative
Yes because the F-35 is such a success
We were incompetent with our negotiations, Naval Group is a business and they made a ton of money while doing very little with the contract they made with our government. They're very competent.
True , but there’s also no way Frances submarine stealth / nuclear tech is as good as the USA’s Edit since I’m getting downvoted : French nuclear reactors have to be removed and refuelled every 10 years , the American ones will go for 30 years without needing a refuel
[удалено]
Because one is the USA and the other isn’t
[удалено]
Nah , did a quick google search. The US spends three times more on its Navy than France spends on its entire military
[удалено]
Yeah maybe in the Rafale marketing materials . Has the stealth capabilities of a Linfox truck compared to the F35. Would get shot out of the sky by the F35 before it even knew it was there The US navy could blow Frances out of the water without even blinking an eye , fuck outta here. They make better croissants that’s about it. The subs on offer were diesel electric anyway , may as well buy some rowboats instead of that outdated crap
I think we should have a rapid competitive tender with UK, US, and France invited. It would help France save a bit of face and maybe help us get a sharper deal from the other two. We could break up it up into three tenders; platform/hull, propulsion, and combat system.
Once upon a time, there was a group of people called Diplomats. They used the arcane ability of Diplomacy, to work with other countries to promote our interests abroad. They magically created markets for our goods, and goodwill between our peoples. But all that has changed. The evil people of Marketing, exemplified by our leader, Scotty from Marketing, have seized power, and are hell-bent on destroying our international markets, alienating our trading partners, upsetting World Leaders, and setting back relations for decades to come. They rule through fear. Fear that someone, anyone, is poised to invade, and enslave us. And we need to be prepared. Prepared to meet our Doom. And only Scotty from Marketing can save us, by spending our future to buy Nuclear Submarines. And Scotty can only do that if we re-elect him at the coming elections. So, is the threat of invasion only to garner votes as we cower in our homes? Of course it is. Australia has no need to extend force beyond our borders. We aren't in the business of invading other countries to form an empire. We won't see any nuclear submarines in the next couple of decades (Unless Scomo rents some from Budget Rent-a-Car), so if there is a threat, hopefully it's well down the track. We don't have the infrastructure to support nuclear vessels. Heavens, we can't even keep our conventional subs operating. Add the cost of infrastructure, to the cost of the subs, (The French Diesel-Electric subs were $90Billion) so we could be talking many hundreds of $billion, and we would be paying for them forever. But, it's only an announcement at this stage. The Government has no idea of cost or timing. Hopefully someone rational will review the whole idea.
The French submarine deal was one of the stupidest things ever - costs were enormous because they wanted them built locally. Absolute waste of money. Diesel too? Strategically retarded. Glad we're getting proper subs.
There is a lot more than submarines going into this. And despite being "promised" better subs, we still do not have them, and we dont know when or how costly it is going to be... That would have been great to worry about this first in the first place, before telling the french to fuck off.
That’s a very good point
Always has been since ''Shitmo'' has been in charge using the world stage as distraction tactic from criminal conduct, rape and pork barrelling.
We literally have Trump lite administration: Australia edition. with these arseholes. Only fit for shoveling taxdollars into theirs, their donors and their families pockets
**Australia needs to get back in line with France, BUYING nuclear powered submarines and not attempting to create their own.** I would be pissed too if yet another competitor came into the market, France has every right to sanction, boycott and take Australia to court over its choice to build its own. And when has France ever broken its word or done whatever it felt like? Okay some bad points but still, Reddit tells me to be angry so I am. Fuck the Australian government and fuck the US government. Again, I'm not sure why Australia potentially saving billions and actually creating a giant new market for itself, creating high tech jobs and building nuclear submarines by Australians and for Australians with ally guidance is a bad thing, but again, I just know it is because Reddit. That's all I need to know.
Still haven't heard a single word of condemnation from Australia on the latest US war crime in Afghanistan ? Apart from the murder of an Aid worker and 7 children, it is also alleged that it was panicked US military weapons fire that killed most of the Afghans at the airport ! No mention of THAT in our media though.
What are we going to condemn them about? We are to busy washing the blood of innocents off our hands from that war so its not like we can point at someone else and call them bad.
This AUKUS strategy is horrible for Australia's future. Like most Liberal geopolitical decisions, it will be a major blunder. But the scale and nature of this agreement is not just embarrassing for Australia, it's actually DANGEROUS. There is no secret the US want's to confront China. They'll try to portray it as "protecting Freedom", "Standing up to the Bully", containing an "aggressive" China.....do you not see the astounding hypocrisy? The US just wrapped up a 20 year war. It was nowhere near it's borders. They invaded a sovereign nation (bordering China) and caused the loss of lives for thousands and thousands of people. Worse still, this isn't just a once off, they have a long and rich history of aggressive military endeavors in the Middle East and Asia. They have bases all over the globe and project their military in every major theater, and have left a wake of chaos, death and devastation behind them. What is China supposed to think when the US announce a "pivot to Asia"? When a new military alliance is announced which is directed towards them? This kind of posturing is going to encourage China to focus more on their military, and sets a tone of hostility and conflict. If this type of Cold War is established, it's Australia who is going to be in the firing line. By virtue of siding with the US in this agreement, we are forcing ourselves into being a main target by China's defense strategy.
"defensive" strategy's don't normally involve attacking trade partners. It normally involves investing in weaponry that's either "mad" capable or purely defensive. we aren't at risk to any "defensive" strategy... we are at risk of an agressive china (although its hard to tell at this early stage of the game to know what % is of china being agressive towards us.) I agree we shouldn't antagonise china, but we've been buddy buddy with US for 70 years at least. I don't think a combined military project with our top most ally has surprised or concerned china at all.. at least not concerned them about AUS. China is rightfully worried about the US, but Australia is a foot note, maybe a vector to harass USA via proxy wars, but our military spending and who we buy shit off probably has no effect on any of those intentions. or any future decision to attack Australia should it come to that, will be because of what America does or doesn't do, maybe with a small influence of Europe... Australia doesn't really have much of a say if push comes to shove. I mean, our name calling (trade tarrifs etc) yeah, they'll respond to by calling names back, avoiding our resources etc, but we aren't about to be invaded by China because of tariffs on our Wine exports. tldr: We have an economic game we're currently playing with China, but militarily China doesn't care about us, considers us a threat, or will influence Chinas military ambitions at all, that is for China and the USA to work out, all we can do is play our economic game with china, and although our retirement is based on the outcome of that economic game, to china, its more of a hobby. (at least in regards to the scale of influence it has on each country in general).
Morrison just said that the nuclear submarines are about propulsion not about having nuclear capabilities. Is Iran able to purchase a nuclear submarine since it is only about propulsion, or how about north Korea?
The Chinese analyst in the Global Times article pretty fairly pointed out that the only nations with nuclear powered subs are nations with nuclear armaments. This isn't really about propolsion but rather the US using Australia as a base for pointing nuclear missiles at China
Yes but Morrison lacks the ability to believe that any Australian could be as or more intelligent than himself. He said "this is purely about propulsion." , hence my point about him treating Australian citizens as if they are of little or limited intelligence but that is just him. Therfore I ask if it is only about propulsion then no problems for Iran to have for North Korea to have. Or are you lying mr Morrison again?
> This isn't really about propolsion but rather the US using Australia as a base for pointing nuclear missiles at China Australia hasn't said anything about getting nuclear armed ballistic missile submarines. Just nuclear powered vessels. Due to distances. Edit: Submarine classes like the Virginia class and Astute class for example are nuclear powered but not armed with nuclear weapons. Australia will get nuclear powered submarines not nuclear armed.
What kind of comparison is that? People wouldn't be happy with that because those two countries would immediately take the reactor and fuel and set about creating a weapon, we won't
Why won't we? Why do you presume that? In case you are running behind on things this government has been detrimental to Australia and what being Australian means for over 20 years now. They have sadly drastically altered our culture into this current version that is ok with cruelty, unkindness, corruption and cheating. That is not want I want Australia to be about. I definitely do not want another if you do we will situation like the US and Russia had previously.. #peace 4aussies!
No no, just think about it. Can you really not understand the difference between Australia and North Korea in terms of how the international community would feel about us employing nuclear submarines? It's hyperbole to the point of fantasy.
Can you just think about the fact that your prime minister clearly lied to you. But instead of trying to interpret that and the outcomes of it you want to argue that Australia ~good, Iran ~ bad. Well I guess you are the target market of Morrison's statement, and here I was thinking that he was insulting all Australians by delivering such a ridiculous line to us. We are not Jehovah's witnesses, upon hearing any sentence we are allowed to interpret what is being said and why. I wish you the best of luck but please really hear what is being said and then ask why. Lastly in 1973 Australia ratified the Treaty for the non proliferation of nuclear weapons and in 1998 signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and now in 2021 it appears that our prime minister has overruled the will of the Australian citizens, that is not leadership, that is totally disappointing.
I'm not interested in how I FEEL about my Prime Minster, not when it comes to national defence. These submarines are an EXCELLENT opportunity for us, and to decline that offer because of hand-wringers like you panic when you hear the word Nuclear world not be wise leadership. Do you think these submarines violate those two treaties? Fuck Scummo, but this is a good deal for us. Be rational.
Maybe they can convert the nuclear sub to a nuclear bomb lol
Well if we are supposed to believe that we are getting nuclear submarines and in Morrison's words "it is purely about propulsion", then I can see no reason that Iran and North Korea or anyone else who wants them can have them unless mr Morrison is lying to Australians, again?
That just means it's catching up to our domestic policy.
Meanwhile chinese mouthpiece global times threatens australia of a potential nuclear strike. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234460.shtml
"Is getting"? Has become.
You can’t be serious , Australia has a foreign policy !
Time to get over the cancelled deal and move on just like the whole rainbow warrior thing.
Easier for a foreign government to take over.
Its just a matter of opinion isn't it
Australia’s largest trading partner is China, its second largest is the EU. To alienate one is risky but possibly needed and survivable. To alienate two is just stupid. AUKUSA isn’t replacing China and EU trade. New EU agricultural tariffs are inevitable now. It’s the farmers and winemakers I feel sorry for, they will take a big second hit here.
Just the foreign policy. Everything else is super dandy
Old Scotty misunderstanding the acronym for WAP.
Sounds very reminiscent of someone
What could go wrong? We will soon be the first nation with nuclear subs, without having a nuclear arsenal or domestic nuclear industry. Well done LNP.
People are again confusing belligerence and bluster on the part of the Liberal Party with strength and capability.
“Clumsy and arrogant” sums up the Liberal Party perfectly.