The nuclear sub deal

This must be the elephant in the Living Room

Was it the right decision for the Federal Government to cancel the sub deal with France & move to a nuclear powered solution from the US & UK?

Australia's nuclear submarine deal fundamentally changes our relationship with the world

Have our needs changed due to China's actions in the Pacific & their posturing on trade relations with Oz or is this part of a secret plan to reduce our reliance on coal? (SNM's conspiracy theory on how we will rise to the challenge for net zero).

Has the Australian psyche changed to accept the decision or was it political suicide? Will it affect your vote (considering that it was supported by both major parties)?

On the flipside, is it a way of retaining shipbuilding in SA & all of the technology trades of the future as a job creation/retention/training scheme for SA & future generations?

 

I think we have just sent a collective raspberry to China ...

 

Hopefully we can have bipartisan support for New Clear Power Stations 100 years behind the rest of the world to replace our dirty coal ones. I honestly believe the only reason we don’t is because of the Nationals-Liberals Alliance and the Labor-Greens Alliance.
If the two majors cared for Australians rather than themselves we’d have them.

 

I don't agree - there is no actual agreement in place, only a plan to make a plan to plan to put together a pact.

And then the government didn't have to balls to actually tell the French - they found out via the media announcement. And then the subs, assuming they every get built, won't be in service for another 20 years - by which time the world dynamics would've changed (yet again) and we would've have 5 swaps of government and hence could be cancelled at any time.

So, all we've done is peeve off the French, the Chinese and the Kiwis for nothing tangible and a big debt.

Why on earth is Australia determined to tie itself to a warmongering (and losing) country such as the US? History - which is destined to be repeated if the lesson isn't learnt - tells us again and again, that chest beating and sabre rattling doesn't work in the long term - only divides rather than unites.

If the government is concerned about Chinese influence in the region - then why don't we join forces with the US and become "the instigators of positive influence" ... you know ... supply vaccines, help establish stable and democratic governments in the way that suits the country (instead of enforcing our western methods), build trade and support innovative businesses in their home countries, enable better education and healthcare, become friendly trading partners, play fair and share technology to enable a country to invest in it's own sovereign wealth (instead of trying to rip off a poor country from its gas reserves)

You know - all that stuff that would make allies of the region, become a unified part of the world, reduce influence from not-so-friendly countries and cost a heck of a lot less than a bunch of nuclear subs.

And - as such - the Australian people are not happy (social media is scathing)

**p.s. I didn't agree with the French sub deal either - for many of the above reasons

 

Australia still gets 76% of its power from fossil fuels. Whilst I agree with renewables we currently have over 25% of houses with roof top solar plus solar farms plus wind farms plus hydro plus all other non fossil fuels generating only 24% of Australia’s needs.
At this rate we’ll go into the next century with coal power stations.

 

I concur - SNM's radical theory of getting to net zero comprises digging out & selling all of the coal in Oz so there's none left by 2050 (the exporter of the coal gets hit with the greenhouse gas/carbon use not the actual user). If there's no coal left to be exported, then our greenhouse gas/carbon has been exhausted & we are no longer the biggest per-captia user of coal & we are then green

 

Nope - lot coming on line within the next 5 years. Just one example:

Hydrogen energy

 

Putting the geopolitics aside - massive can of worms and this isn’t the audience for it - taking a UK/US boat designed for nuclear propulsion is a far better bet than a scaled down French nuclear design (that they wouldn’t give us) with one off diesel electric power. The only reason we took the latter is that we couldn’t get the former. It was a half arsed solution, when the time for that has passed.

 

By the time there is industrial action, supply disruptions, red tape and contractual issue's I doubt we will see even one of these in service by the 2039 estimate

In fact 2049 isn't looking good either

Elon will be standing on Mars before our Subs even get wet

 

Same as any military or aviation purchase - there's a 20 year lead time.

 

Imagine the sunk costs!

 

There is no deal for subs... this was a showbiz moment designed to distract. It was an announcement about an agreement to talk about some form of "optimal" opportunity for the next 18 months.... and then decide what might happen next.

I'm all for nuclear options . Real ones, not powered subs. I think Australia ought to arm itself against China's clear aggression in the region, but this was nothing more than an election stunt

Look over here

 

Warmongering?
Really?
They were late into WW1
And WW2 only after Pearl Harbour.
After that, they are the greatest and most powerful nation on earth who stand for freedom and relief from tyranny and communism and despots et all.
911, unprovoked attack as well.
Do you want to NOT have the US help protect us? We cant do it alone.
Hang on, I bet you have a remedy for this.....? lets hear it?

 

Yes really. In the past 243 years, the US has only been NOT involved in a war for a mere 18 of those years ... The US Has Been at war 225 out of 243 years since 1776

911 - unprovoked? So the invention of "weapons of mass destruction" to start a Middle East war (or two) wasn't provocation? Okay, considering 15 of the 19 attackers were from Saudi Arabia - 2 from UAE - 1 from Lebanon - 1 from Egypt - but instead the US attacks Afghanistan and not a peep of condemnation again the Saudis? Granted they trained in Afghanistan, with backing from the Pakistani government - but again - not a word against Pakistan.

Do you really think their actions prevent despots and communism and tyranny - how about you read up about all the countries they skirmished in (including most of South America) and see what happened when they supported coups against democratically elected leaders (who didn't pander to the US) and then after the US left - yep - the vacuum was filled by despots, communism and tyranny, often ongoingly funded by the US ... List of wars involving the United States - Wikipedia

This alone is a summary of the resultant deaths/displacements from their warmongering after 9/11 ... Human Costs | Costs of War

And ... do you really think that, when custard hits the fan and/if the US is under a physical attack, they're really going to worry about lil ole Orstral'a way down the bottom of the map? Although, physical attack is unlikely - hackers have already shown how easy it is the cripple the US via cyber warfare, by taking out a single oil pipeline.

I'm sorry but I refuse to be brainwashed by the US declaration that they are the biggest and they know best-est.

 

As for - what can we do?

How about NOT ripping off our impoverished neighbour of their rare natural commodities (gas fields in Timor) and bugging their government establishments. How about caring about global warming swamping our neighbouring island communities and helping them re-establish elsewhere, while undertaking preventative measures. How about not dumping our refugees onto countries that really don't want them but feel obliged under Australia's bullying ... the list is rather long.

Granted - Australia does do a lot for the region, and so we should being the wealthiest - but there is so much more we could do, similar to what China is doing but without China's attached strings

 

Nuclear > Diesel